Lane County Transportation System Plan

Effective June 4, 2004

Lane County Public Works Engineering Division Transportation Planning 3040 N. Delta Highway Eugene, OR 97408

LANE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN

Lane County Public Works Engineering Division, Transportation Planning

3040 North Delta Highway Eugene, OR 97408

LANE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN ADOPTION

The Lane County Planning Commission recommended adoption of this document in its present form on October 14, 2003. The Roads Advisory Committee recommended adoption of this document in its present form on October 29, 2003. State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Commission Acknowledgment occurred on June 1, 2004. This document was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners by Ordinance No. PA 1202, on May 5, 2004, with an effective date of June 4, 2004.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Bobby Green, Sr., Chair, North Eugene Don Hampton, Vice-Chair, East Lane Anna Morrison, West Lane Bill Dwyer, Springfield Peter Sorenson, South Eugene

ROADS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Leo Stapleton, Chair Jack Radabaugh, Vice Chair Richard Maury Don McClure Jody Ogle Tom Poage Rex Redmon

LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Mark Herbert, Chair Juanita Kirkham, Vice Chair Jacque Marie Betz Chris Clemow Steve Dignam Marion Esty Vincent Martorello

COVER DESIGN

Michael Russell

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Lane County Department of Public Works Engineering Division, Transportation Planning Section 3040 North Delta Highway Eugene, OR 97408

LANE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction - 1

Chapter 2: Definitions - 4

Chapter 3: Goals & Policies - 8

Chapter 4: Transportation System Facilities - 21 4.1. Roads - 21 Description of the Road Network - 21 Access Management - 27 Level of Service and System Performance - 28 Design Standards - 30

Goals and Policies: Roads - 31 4.2. Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities - 38

Goals and Policies: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities - 40

4.3. Public Transportation - 42 Goals and Policies: Public Transportation - 45

4.4. Rail, Air, Water, and Pipelines - 47

Rail Transportation - 47 Goals and Policies: Rail Transportation - 47 Air Transportation - 48 Goals and Policies: Air Transportation - 49 Water Transportation: Port of Siuslaw - 50 Goals and Policies: Water Transportation - 51 Pipelines - 51 Goals and Policies: Pipelines - 52

Chapter 5: Transportation and Land Use - 53 Goals and Policies: Transportation and Land Use - 54

Chapter 6: Recommended Improvements - 57 6.1. County Profile and Trends - 57 6.2. Financial Overview - 62 6.3. Needs Assessment Methodology and Results - 69 6.4. TSP Project List Overview - 78

Goals and Policies: Financing and Recommended Improvements - 78

TSP 20-Year Project List: Alphabetical - 80 By Project No. - 88 By Source TSP (County, Cities) - 96

i

ii

Maps 1. Lane County Base Map

2. Lane Transit District 3. Air, Rail, Water, and Pipelines

3a. Inset for Map 3 4. Functional Class Maps - Index

4-1 – 4-19: Functional Class Subareas 5. Project Maps - 5a - 5c

Appendices A. Acronyms

B. County Roads Inventory C. Lane County Bicycle Map (available in hard copy) D. Detailed Level of Service Methodology E.1. Public Involvement Plan E 2. Summary of 1995 Public Comments F. Lane County General Plan Chart G. Needs Assessment Data H. Findings of compliance with state land use goals and County Comprehensive Plan

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Purpose The Lane County Transportation System Plan (TSP) updates the first Transportation Plan adopted by the County in 1980. The TSP is a 20-year planning document whose overall purpose is to facilitate orderly and efficient management of the County’s transportation system. More specifically, the purpose of adopting a new Transportation System Plan and associated code amendments is to: • comply with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 197.175) and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-

012), which require the County to adopt an updated TSP to comply with new state requirements and changing circumstances.

• describe the existing transportation system, including the roads system, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, public transportation, rail, air, and water facilities, and pipelines;

• identify present and future transportation needs, and how these needs will be prioritized and paid for given the current and anticipated financial outlook;

• promote coordination between transportation system improvements and land use requirements; • facilitate the multi-modal transportation needs of County citizens; and • promote consistency and coordination between agencies with jurisdiction over components of the

transportation network. Relationship of TSP to County Comprehensive Plan, City TSPs, and State Plans The County Comprehensive Plan includes all City-adopted comprehensive plans within the County. The County TSP is a Special Purpose Plan that is a component of the Comprehensive Plan (refer to Lane County General Plan Chart, Appendix F). Each of the twelve incorporated cities within Lane County has its own comprehensive plan, including a transportation element and/or a TSP. These plans are applicable to individual cities and the area outside the city limits and inside the corresponding urban growth boundary (UGB). For the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area, TransPlan is the adopted Transportation System Plan, and it applies within the adopted Metro Area General Plan boundary. Under the state TPR, TSPs must be consistent with each other and with State Transportation Plan components, including the Oregon Aviation Plan, Oregon Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, Corridor Plans, Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon Public Transportation Plan, the Rail Freight Plan, and the Rail Passenger Policy and Plan. While the County TSP looks to City TSPs when decisions are needed regarding transportation facilities within urban growth boundaries, the County TSP must also be consulted regarding County Roads within urban growth boundaries. Similarly, while state highways, and rail, air, port, and pipeline facilities within the County are described in the County TSP and provided for in goals and policies, the managing public or private agency of those facilities, and their applicable plan documents, must also be consulted in making decisions about those facilities. To date, the following local jurisdictions within Lane County have completed and adopted TSPs: • City of Coburg (adopted November 1999) • City of Cottage Grove (adopted September 1998) • City of Creswell (adopted October 1998) • Eugene-Springfield (TransPlan, adopted October 2001, amended July 2002) • Junction City (adopted November 2000) • City of Oakridge (adopted January 2001) • City of Veneta (adopted December 1998)

2

It is anticipated that Florence and the County will co-adopt a TSP as part of that City’s comprehensive plan in 2003. City TSPs include projects for which Lane County is the lead agency. These projects are therefore also included in the County’s project list, Chapter 6.4. On the Horizon: A Focus on Multi-Modal Transportation and Energy Conservation For decades, the combination of thousands of miles of public roads, increasing per capita income, and affordable private vehicles has offered unprecedented freedom to travel. The automobile allowed mobility and choices as to cultural, social, and economic pursuits, including employment, purchasing decisions, and recreation. Undoubtedly the growth and increasing vitality of the United States since the early 1900s can be partially attributed to this unprecedented mobility. With increased motorized travel comes traffic congestion and air pollution, and concerns about global warming and energy shortages. For many citizens in Lane County, where these problems have had a relatively minor impact on livability compared to other, more intensely urbanized areas, these issues seem distant and even irrelevant. However, initiatives and trends on the national level attest to broad recognition of their reality: • The Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2002 (H.R. 4), if passed, would (in part) provide incentives for

cleaner energy sources and alternative fueled vehicles. • In the year 2000, Honda and Toyota each released “hybrid” cars that combine electricity and gasoline to

obtain significant increases in miles per gallon over conventional cars. Other car manufacturers are following suit. Honda, General Motors, and Daimler Chrysler recently announced plans to market fuel cell cars powered by hydrogen by 2003.1

• Although stable, long term funding remains elusive for high-speed rail, support for it continues to grow. The High-Speed Rail Investment Act established 12 high-speed rail corridors around the country, and several regions are moving toward implementation. The Pacific Northwest Corridor between Eugene and Vancouver, B.C. is a first step toward realization of high-speed rail in this area. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia have joined together and are working with the business communities in each state to implement high-speed rail in the Southeast. Californians are considering a general obligation bond to fund a high-speed train system, to begin construction in 2004. The Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition envisions connecting Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois, and Ohio.

On a local level, communities are increasingly focusing efforts on transportation demand management concepts, such as Lane Transit District’s Commuter Solutions Program and Bus Rapid Transit, and the Portland Metro area’s limitation on downtown parking and light rail system, Max. Neotraditional land use planning models have also surged in popularity over the last decade, as communities struggle to deal with growth and sprawl. These models borrow from historical examples of urban development and typically promote mixed uses at a pedestrian scale. A principle goal of such development is to discourage auto trips and encourage trips that can be easily made by biking or walking. Demographic trends also demand increased attention to alternative transportation modes. As in the nation as a whole, the County’s population is aging. By 2020, the percentage of the population aged 65 or older is expected to increase from 12.8% (2000) to 16.4 % of the total population2. The 2000 Census indicates that Florence’s population is already 38.2% 65 years of age or older, and in Dunes City, 27.3% of the population is also in this category. As people age, driving independently will be eliminated as a mobility option for many of them, yet they will continue to need transportation services. Coordination The variety of transportation needs of County residents requires coordination among all governing agencies, particularly since County Roads are the only transportation mode over which Lane County can exercise direct

1 October 2002, Google World News Listings 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, October 2002

3

jurisdiction. Coordination is especially important given that the State Constitution requires that highway user fees be used for road-related purposes. Transit facilities and services, for instance, are not a legal use of these funds. However, by participating in multi-jurisdictional planning and development related to diversifying mobility options within and between Eugene-Springfield, Florence, and other cities, the County can contribute to transportation solutions for the citizens of these areas and also mitigate capacity problems and limit costly infrastructure investments. As transportation-related problems increase, the use of more flexible funding sources outside of the Road Fund may become necessary to enable more comprehensive multi-modal transportation investments. Fostering an expanded multi-modal transportation system is most successful within cities, where bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities are most necessary and feasible. Beyond city boundaries, however, the County TSP is an important component of the overall transportation planning framework. The County contributes by: • Coordinating with state and local agencies that manage the transportation network, and providing policy

support for efficient integration. This includes working with Oregon Department of Transportation and City governments within Lane County to ensure intersecting roads in multiple jurisdictions function at optimal levels; coordinating with Lane Transit District in the location of bus stops and development of new routes; and providing policy support for Port of Siuslaw and rail operations.

• Considering the needs of pedestrians and cyclists for all County Road improvement projects through the construction of marked bike lanes and sidewalks in urban areas, and wider shoulders for rural pedestrian and bicycle use.

• Implementing statewide land use goals that limit development in outlying rural areas, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled for commute trips and delivery of goods and services that would potentially result.

• The County plays a key role in contributing to integration between rail, port, and road facilities for the movement of goods and services. Ensuring the maintenance and operation of the County’s road system, and coordinating with ODOT where State and County Roads intersect, is crucial to provide for efficient movement of goods and services within and through the County and between transportation modes.

Plan Development and Public Involvement The effort to update the County’s TSP initially began in the mid-1990’s. Several public meetings were held around the County in 1995 to disseminate information about the planning process and to gather feedback about transportation issues. A questionnaire was widely distributed, and 18 responses were submitted. A summary of 1995 public comments is included in Appendix E.2. Since then, County planning and engineering staff developed a road inventory, a detailed needs assessment, and road design standards. Based upon established engineering practices and County procedures, the standards were fine-tuned for County roadways. In the late 1990s, the TSP effort was delayed due to reallocation of County resources to other projects, including co-adoption of the six small City Transportation System Plans, and adoption of TransPlan for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area. Lane County re-energized its efforts to move forward on the TSP adoption effort again during 2001. This draft represents a culmination of all of these past efforts. As part of an overall package to comply with the TPR the County also developed land use regulations to implement the TSP. In addition, Lane Code and Lane Manual Chapters 15, which contain provisions for roads, are being updated. Upon completion of the TSP draft, and before beginning a formal hearing and adoption process, a second round of public meetings was held in February 2003 throughout the County. Proposed Lane Code and Lane Manual updates were released for public comment in July 2003. Draft materials were also made available on the internet. In addition, notices of availability of the drafts were mailed to a list of over 500 public and private sector individuals. A copy of the Public Involvement Plan as approved by the Lane County Planning Commission in February 2002 is included in Appendix E.1.

4

CHAPTER 2: DEFINITIONS The following definitions shall apply in interpreting and implementing the Lane County Transportation System Plan: (1) Access. Subject to adopted policies and standards, the means by which a lot, parcel, area or tract directly

obtains safe, adequate and usable ingress and egress. (2) Access Management. The regulation of vehicular access to streets, roads and highways from public and

private roads and driveways to reduce potential conflicts and promote safety as well as to preserve the capacity, speed, and traffic flow for which the road system was planned for and designed. These measures may include, but are not limited to, policies and spacing standards for access to roadways, and use of physical controls such as channelization and raised medians.

(3) Approach (Road Approach, Driveway Approach). The area of intersection of an approaching road or

driveway with a road. (4) Capacity.

(a) The maximum number of vehicles that can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or segment of road under prevailing conditions and during a specified period of time.

(b) The structural capacity of a roadway, or the ability of the pavement structure, bridges, or other cross-sectional elements to carry loads created by traffic or the dead-load of the elements themselves.

(5) Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A short range financial plan that programs construction project

funding for the County Road Fund. Lane County maintains an annually updated CIP for transportation improvement projects.

(6) Demand Management. Actions that are designed to change travel behavior in order to improve

performance of transportation facilities and to reduce need for additional road capacity. Methods may include but are not limited to the use of alternative modes, ride-sharing and vanpool programs, and trip-reduction ordinances.

(7) Egress. A means or place of leaving a property. (8) Final Design. An engineering design which specifies in detail the location and alignment of a planned

transportation facility or improvement that has been approved by the County Board of Commissioners. See also Preliminary Design.

(9) Functional Class. The classification of a road according to its expected level of service and function. The

following functional class definitions apply to County Roads as defined under Roads in this section: (a) Principal Arterial. A road which provides for through traffic between major centers of human activity

in urban, suburban and rural areas. (b) Minor Arterial. A road which provides for intracommunity traffic flow to principal arterials and

within urban areas. In rural areas, minor arterials serve as a direct connection between communities and also bring traffic to principal arterials.

(c) Major Collector. A road or street which is used primarily to channel traffic from neighborhoods to arterials, and to commercial or industrial districts in urban areas. In rural areas, major collectors provide connections from outlying areas to the arterial system (primarily state highways).

(d) Minor Collector. A road or street which gathers traffic within the neighborhood and directs it to a major collector or arterial.

(e) Local Road or Street. A road intended solely for the purpose of providing access to adjacent properties. A local road may terminate in a cul-de-sac or be part of a larger network. Roads

5

functionally classified as Local Roads are County-maintained roads and do not include Public Roads that have not been accepted by the Board as County Roads, or Local Access Roads.

(10) Ingress. A means or place of entering a property. (11) Land Use Decision. As defined in Lane Code 14.015. (12) Land Use Regulation. As defined in Lane Code 14.015. (13) Modernization. Road improvement projects to accommodate existing traffic and/or projected traffic growth

consistent with adopted state, regional, county, or other local Transportation System Plans. County modernization projects are typically included in the General Construction project list of the County Capital Improvements Program. Modernization projects include, but are not limited to: reconstruction of roads; realignment of roads; addition of paved shoulders, curb and gutter, sidewalks, or other pedestrian and bicycle facilities; reconstruction of slopes, embankments, or ditches to provide improved safety and drainage; addition of travel lanes; widening of bridges; passing and climbing lanes; median turn lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, other channelization as defined in this section; new alignments, new safety rest areas, grade separations, intersection improvements, intermodal connectors, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and off system improvements.

(14) New Road. Construction of a Public Road or road segment that is not a reconstruction, modification, or

realignment of an existing road or road segment. (15) Operation, maintenance, and/or repair. Routine activities necessary to operate and maintain the road

system. These activities include, but are not limited to, signing, pavement marking, traffic signals, pavement surface maintenance and repair; pothole patching, culvert pipe and ditch grading, maintenance, or repair; dust control, vegetation control, and litter and animal carcass cleanup. These activities and minor transportation system improvements associated with them are not listed as projects in the Transportation System Plan or Capital Improvement Program. These activities provide for increased efficiency and safer traffic operations and reliability. Activities may include some aspects of preservation as defined in this section. Pavement surface maintenance does not include additional pavement structure needed as a result of a change in or intensification of a use of a property.

(16) Preliminary Design. An engineering design which specifies in detail the proposed location and alignment

of a planned transportation facility or improvement. Preliminary design is normally specified as part of the Capital Improvement Program public involvement process when a project is being readied to be sent out to bid for construction. See also Final Design.

(17) Preservation. Activities that rebuild or extend the service life of existing transportation facilities. Road

preservation projects add useful life to the road. Preservation includes but is not limited to reconstruction, pavement rehabilitation, pavement resurfacing, and minor safety and bridge improvements.

(18) Realignment. Constructing or rebuilding an existing roadway on a new alignment where the new centerline

shifts outside of the existing right-of-way, and where the existing road surface is either removed, maintained as an access road, or maintained as a connection between the realigned roadway and a road that intersects the original alignment. The realignment may include channelization, and may increase capacity, but shall maintain the function of the existing road segment being realigned unless specified in adopted state, regional, county, or other local Transportation System Plans.

(19) Reconstruction or modification. Rebuilding an existing road in the same general location, either within the

existing right-of-way or by acquiring new right-of-way. May or may not include realignment and/or the addition of turn lanes or other channelization. Reconstruction or modification may increase capacity.

6

(20) Rehabilitation. Road resurfacing, sealing, paving, and restoration, over and above routine maintenance, to repair deteriorating road surfaces and to address safety concerns.

(21) Right-of-Way (ROW, R/W).

(a) Includes the land or any interest in land acquired for public rights of passage, construction of facilities, motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and utilities.

(b) The customary or legal right of a person or vehicle to pass before another. (22) Road. The terms road, street, or highway shall be considered synonymous and shall include the entire area

and all lawful improvements between the right-of-way lines of any public or private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to land. “Road” includes but is not limited to: (a) Arterials, collectors, and local roads as in the functional classes defined above under Functional

Class; (b) Road related structures that are in the right-of-way such as drainage conveyance facilities; (c) Other structures in the right-of-way that provide for the continuity and stability of the right-of-way

including tunnels, retaining walls, and bridges; (d) Underground and/or overhead utilities and utility easements that are within the right-of-way. (e) Roads are further defined as follows:

(i) County Road. As defined in ORS 368. A Public Road which is part of the County Road system and has been assigned a County Road number pursuant to ORS 368.016. The Department is responsible for maintenance. A description of each County Road is kept in the Master Road Files in the Lane County Surveyor’s office. See also Functional Class definitions.

(ii) Expressway. Two-lane and multi-lane highways that provide for safe and efficient high speed and high volume traffic movements. Their primary function is to provide for interurban travel and connections to ports and major recreation areas with minimum interruptions. A secondary function is to provide for long distance intra-urban travel in metropolitan areas. In urban areas, speeds are moderate to high. In rural areas, speeds are high. Usually there are no pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities may be separated from the roadway. Private access is discouraged and Public Road connections are highly controlled.

(iii) Freeway. Arterial roadways with full control of access. Preference is given to through traffic by providing access connections with selected public streets only and by prohibiting crossings at grade and direct private driveway connections. They are intended to provide for high levels of service in the movement of large volumes of traffic at high speeds.

(iv) Frontage Road. A road that is parallel and adjacent to an arterial or other limited access road or railroad right-of-way and which provides access to abutting properties. The primary purpose of a frontage road is to reduce direct access to an arterial or other limited access road or railway right-of-way.

(v) Local Access Road. A Public Road that is not a County Road, state highway, or federal road. Pursuant to ORS 368, the County and its officers, employees and/or agents, is not liable for failure to improve Local Access Roads and is not liable to keep Local Access Roads in repair. The County shall spend County moneys on Local Access Roads only if it determines that the work is an emergency or if:

(aa) the Director recommends the expenditure; and (bb) the public use of the road justifies the expenditure proposed; and (cc) the Board enacts an order or resolution authorizing the work and designating the

work to be either a single project or a continuing program. (vi) Private Access Easement, Private Road. A private, nonpossessory interest in the land of another

which entitles the holder(s) of the interest to use the roadway for access and to pass across another's land. A private road is intended to provide for ingress and egress to land and may include that portion of a panhandle or flag lot or parcel that is used for access purposes or an access road in which the underlying fee belongs to two or more persons, association, corporation, firm, club, partnership or other similar entity having the right of administration and/or ownership thereof.

7

(vii) Public Road. A road over which the public has a right of use that is a matter of record. For purposes of the Transportation System Plan, a Public Road is a road that has been dedicated for use by the public for road purposes either by good and sufficient deed presented to and accepted by the Board, or by a partition map and plat or subdivision plat presented to and accepted by the Board. Once accepted and placed on record, Public Roads are held in trust for the public by the County, and shall specifically exclude private roads, private ways, Private Access Easements or agreements, Forest Service roads, Bureau of Land Management roads, any Gateway or Way of Necessity as defined by ORS Chapter 376 and any other road which has nominally or judicially gained a “public character” by prescriptive or adverse use. A Public Road is not normally maintained by the County unless it has been accepted by the Board as a County Road as defined in this section, but the County may regulate its use. Common terms for this type of road are “Dedicated Public Road” and “Local Access Road”.

(viii) Rural Road. A road or portion of a road that is not within an urban growth boundary. (ix) Stubbed Road. A road having only one outlet, and which is intended to be extended or

continued to serve future development on adjacent lands. A stubbed road that is part of the County Road system is functionally classified as a Local Road. This can include a cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround area intended to be extended in the future.

(x) Turnaround (Cul-de-sac or Hammerhead). The area located at the terminus of a road and developed to the standards for Turnarounds in Lane Code Chapter 15, the purpose of which is to allow motor vehicles to safely and efficiently reverse direction.

(xi) Urban Road. A road or portion of a road that is within an urban growth boundary. (23) Transportation Facility. A physical system, including any portion thereof, that moves or assists in the

transport of people, animals, or goods, including roads, bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian paths, rail lines, airport facilities, port facilities, and pipelines, and excluding electricity, water and sewerage systems.

(24) Transportation Project Development. Implementing the Transportation System Plan (TSP) by determining

the precise location, alignment, and preliminary design of improvements included in the TSP based on site-specific engineering and environmental studies.

8

CHAPTER 3: GOALS AND POLICIES For convenience, all goals and policies found in the remainder of the document are consolidated in this chapter. Goals are broad statements of philosophy describing a vision for the future. Goals are organized by topic area. Policies are statements that provide a more specific course of action to move toward goals. Policies have the force of law. Transportation improvements, land development, and other actions affecting the County’s transportation network must be consistent with adopted policies. Once adopted, the goals and policies will become a part of the County’s General Plan.

Goals And Policies ROADS Goal 1: Maintain the safety, physical integrity and function of the County Road network through the

routine maintenance program, the Capital Improvement Program, and the consistent application of road design standards.

Policy 1-a: Road operations, maintenance, repair, and preservation activities shall be a priority of the

Public Works Operations budget and shall be routinely carried out to protect the public investment in, and to ensure adequate functioning of the County Road network.

Policy 1-b: Continue to implement the Capital Improvement Program including yearly adoption to

address changing conditions, modified project schedules, the addition of new projects, and project completion.

Policy 1-c: Safety shall be the first priority in making decisions for the Capital Improvement Program

and for roadway operations, maintenance, and repair. Policy 1-d: The requirements of Lane Code 15 shall be consistently applied to all public and private road

improvement projects. In the absence of a County-adopted standard for a particular design element, the edition specified in Lane Manual 15.450 of the following primary documents shall be the basis for road design, construction, signing and marking decisions: (i) The following documents, published by the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): (a) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; (b) Roadside Design Guide; (c) Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400); and (d) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

(ii) The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration.

(iii) The following additional documents published by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the American Public Works Association (APWA), Oregon Chapter: (a) Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction (ODOT & APWA); (b) Oregon Standard Drawings (ODOT & APWA); (c) ODOT Highway Design Manual; (d) ODOT Hydraulics Manual; (e) ODOT Hydraulics Manual, Volume 2 (Erosion and Sediment Control); (f) Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (ODOT, 1995); and (g) 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (ODOT).

(iv) The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 published by the Transportation Research Board.

9

(v) The Trip Generation, 7th Edition manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers.

Policy 1-e: Road improvement projects shall consider and, as financially and legally feasible, integrate

improvements for alternative transportation modes such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus stop turnouts, consistent with adopted road design standards.

Policy 1-f: Maintain County arterial and collector roads sufficiently for the safe and efficient movement

of freight, consistent with applicable traffic impact analysis, design policies and standards and land use regulations.

Policy 1-g: Maintain and improve roads consistent with their functional classification. Reclassify roads

as appropriate to reflect function and use. Policy 1-h: City standards shall apply to County Roads functionally classified as local roads within urban

growth boundaries. In the absence of City standards, the County’s road design standards shall apply.

Goal 2: Promote a safe and efficient state highway system through the State Transportation Improvement

Program and support of ODOT capital improvement projects.

Policy 2-a: Safe movement of vehicles on the State system and, where allowed, bicyclists and pedestrians shall be a priority. Lane County supports development and implementation of ODOT projects that improve the safety, operation, and structural characteristics of the State highway and bridge system, provided they are consistent with the TSP and applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Policy 2-b: The County shall coordinate, as appropriate, with ODOT in:

(i) plan development; (ii) managing the existing State system; and (iii) designing and developing facility improvements on the State system in Lane County.

Policy 2-c: The County supports the preservation of the natural, historic, cultural, and recreational values

of federally designated Scenic Byway routes maintained by ODOT. Policy 2-d: ODOT safety, preservation and modernization projects on the State system shall be consistent

with Policies 2a-c above, and need not be identified in the Lane County TSP 20-year Project List.

Goal 3: Promote a safe and efficient road network through access management.

Policy 3-a: Access decisions will be made in a manner consistent with the functional classification of the roadway.

Policy 3-b: Access Management policies and spacing standards found herein and in Lane Code 15.130-

15.139 shall apply to all new development, changes of use, and road and driveway approach locations within County Road rights-of-way. For State facilities, the Oregon Department of Transportation controls access pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules 734, Division 51.

Policy 3-c: Development within a County Road right-of-way, including but not limited to excavation,

clearing, grading, utility placement, culvert placement or replacement, other stormwater facilities, and construction or reconstruction of road or driveway approaches, is allowed only upon approval of a facility permit.

10

Policy 3-d: Properties adjacent to County Roads shall be granted reasonable access subject to access management and other applicable policies and standards herein and in Lane Code. Where access is available from more than one road, access shall be taken from the road with the lower functional classification as defined in Lane Code 15.020(2), unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer or designee.

Policy 3-e: Decisions regarding placement, location, relocation, and spacing of traffic control devices,

including but not limited to traffic signals, turn lanes, and medians shall be based upon accepted engineering practices as provided for in the edition specified in Lane Manual 15.450 of the following documents: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the Oregon Standard Drawings published by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and American Public Works Association (APWA), and A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

Policy 3-f: New development shall accommodate on-site traffic circulation on the site and not by

circulating on and off the site through multiple access points using the public road system. "Backing out" maneuvers should be avoided for new driveways on all urban arterials and rural major collectors.

Goal 4: Maintain acceptable road performance levels.

Policy 4-a: The performance standard on County-maintained roads shall be as represented in the following peak hour volume to capacity ratio (v/c) table from Lane Code 15.696. Given adequate funding for public road improvements and as a secondary priority to safety improvements, this standard should be maintained in making decisions about public road improvement projects or implementation of other programs and strategies that mitigate traffic.

(Table 6 from Chapter 4.1.): Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios for Peak Hour Operating Conditions, Lane County Roads Roadway Category Location/Speed Limits

Inside Urban Growth Boundary Outside Urban Growth Boundary

Eugene-Springfield Metro Area

Outside Eugene-Springfield Metro area where speed

limit <45 mph

Outside Eugene-Springfield Metro

area where speed > 45 mph

Within Unincorporated Communities

Outside Unincorporated Communities

Freeways and Expressways 0.80 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other County Roads 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.80 0.70

Policy 4-b: In analyzing arterial or collector streets, peak hour level of service analysis methods may be appropriate. Level of service “D”, using the analytical approaches in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual is the standard of performance to be achieved or maintained, and not exceeded. Not exceeding LOS “D” means achieving or maintaining LOS “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D”. When such analysis is required, both the v/c standard in Lane Code 15.696 and LOS D must be met. The standards and procedures to be used in a particular study shall be approved in advance by Lane County Public Works, according to the procedures in the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines of the Public Works Engineering Division.

Policy 4-c: A traffic impact analysis shall be required as part of a complete land use application based

upon the requirements of Lane Code 15.697, for any of the following: (i) any development proposal that, if approved, will result in an increase in peak hour

traffic flow of 50 or more automobile trips outside an urban growth boundary, or 100 or more automobile trips inside an urban growth boundary. The increase in number of

11

trips shall be calculated based upon the methodology in the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation manual for the year of publication specified in Lane Manual Chapter 15.450 and associated handbook and user’s guide;

(ii) development proposals that will affect County Roads where congestion or safety problems have been identified by previous traffic engineering analysis;

(iii) any plan amendment proposal, unless waived by the County Engineer as specified below;

(iv) proposed development that will generate or receive traffic by single or combination vehicles with gross weights greater than 26,000 pounds as part of their daily operations. “Daily operations” includes delivery to or from the site of materials or products manufactured, processed, or sold by the business on the site. “Daily operations” does not include routine services provided to the site by others, such as mail delivery, solid waste pickup, or bus service.

The County Engineer or designee may waive traffic impact analysis requirements specified above, when: (i) Previous analysis has determined that the development proposal will not result in

congestion, safety, or pavement structure impacts that exceed the standards of the agency that operates the affected transportation facilities; or

(ii) In the case of a plan amendment or zone change, the scale and size of the proposal is insignificant, eliminating the need for detailed traffic analysis of the performance of roadway facilities for the 20-year planning horizon. Whether the scale and size of a proposal may be considered insignificant may depend on the existing level of service on affected roadways. Generally, a waiver to Traffic Impact Analysis will be approved when: (a) the plan designation or zoning that results will be entirely a resource designation;

or (b) the plan designation or zoning that results will be entirely residential and the

allowed density is not likely to result in creation of more than 50 lots; and (c) there is adequate information for the County Engineer or designee to determine

that a transportation facility is not significantly affected as defined in Policy 20-d.

Policy 4-d: When a traffic impact analysis is required,

(i) it shall evaluate all affected County Road facilities where direct access is proposed, including proposed access points and nearby intersections.

(ii) it shall be prepared by an Oregon-certified engineer with expertise in traffic and road construction engineering.

(iii) it shall document compliance with the Road Design Standards in Lane Code 15.700-15.708.

(iv) it shall document compliance with the goals and policies of the applicable Transportation System Plan.

(v) the County Engineer may alter the study requirements based upon the anticipated impact of the proposal. For example, a queue length analysis (based upon 95% probability) may be required.

(vi) the traffic impact analysis requirements shall be coordinated with other affected jurisdictions and agencies, such as the Oregon Department of Transportation or a city.

(vii) traffic engineers preparing traffic impact analyses shall request approval of the scope of the analysis before proceeding with the analysis, as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines of the Public Works Engineering Division.

Policy 4-e: When a traffic impact analysis is required,

(i) for plan amendments, it shall demonstrate that the performance standard in Policy 4-b for the affected County Road will not be exceeded within 20 years from the date the

12

analysis is completed as a result of approval of the plan amendment or zone change. If the performance standards are already exceeded at a location affected by the plan amendment, the standard shall be to avoid further degradation of conditions;

(ii) for other proposed land use development, it shall demonstrate that the performance standard in Lane Code 15.696 for the affected County Road will not be exceeded immediately and for the next five years.

(iii) if the analysis must include an evaluation of the impacts of heavy vehicles pursuant to Policy 4-c (iv), it shall be based upon the procedures for pavement structure analysis in Lane Code 15.707.

(iv) Traffic impact analyses, and mitigation for traffic impacts on transportation facilities shall comply with adopted plans and codes of the agency with jurisdiction for the affected facility.

(v) If the performance standard in Policy 4-b cannot be achieved or maintained as specified in (i) or (ii) above, the traffic impact analysis shall propose road dedications and improvements for capacity increases, implementation of demand management strategies, or other mitigation measures. The proposal shall include a description of how and when the improvements or measures will be implemented. Any proposed road improvements shall be consistent with applicable state and local policies and standards. Examples of mitigation actions are in Chapter 4.1 in the Level of Service and System Performance subsection. Conditions may be assigned to ensure such improvements or measures will be implemented.

Any requirements by the County resulting from an approved traffic impact analysis shall be the responsibility of the applicant unless otherwise approved by the County.

Policy 4-f: The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, for the year of publication

specified in LM 15.450, is the standard of practice for traffic impact analyses. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) published by McTrans Center for Microcomputers in Transportation, or other approved software, may also be used. SIGCAP published by ODOT, or other ODOT-approved software is acceptable when analysis of both State and County facilities is required.

Policy 4-g: ODOT policies and mobility standards shall be applied to decisions affecting State highways

in Lane County. Applicable standards from City Transportation System Plans (TSPs) shall be applied to decisions about City streets.

Policy 4-h: Traffic impact analyses shall be based on proposed access points consistent with County

access management policies and standards specified herein and in Lane Code 15.130-15.139. Traffic impact analyses shall also consider the safe operation of affected driveways and public street intersections. Proposals requiring traffic impact analysis shall include a review of consistency with Access Management policies and standards as part of the approval of the scope of the analysis.

Policy 4-i: When analyzing signalized intersections, locations where signal warrants may be met, or

intersections with all-way stop control (AWSC), the primary objective is to maintain the performance of the overall intersection. The overall intersection v/c ratio must meet the applicable standard. If level of service analysis is required, the level of service standard must also be met. At unsignalized intersections and road approaches with two-way stop control (TWSC), the object is to achieve or maintain the v/c ratios specified in Policy 4-a for the approaches that are not stopped. Approaches at which traffic must stop, or otherwise yield the right of way, shall be operated to maintain safe operation of the intersection and all its approaches and shall not exceed a v/c ratio of 0.95 within urban growth boundaries and a v/c ratio of 0.80 outside of urban growth boundaries. If public side streets or private driveways are predicted to exceed the standards, mitigation measures shall be recommended. If side

13

street or driveway performance is predicted to exceed standards in order to maintain flow on the major street, adequate space for vehicle queuing (based upon 95% probability) must be maintained on the side street or driveway. At the intersection of a County Road and a State highway, State highway standards must be maintained for the State highway.

Goal 5: Promote a safe, functional, and well-maintained bridge network in Lane County.

Policy 5-a: Conduct bridge inspections in compliance with Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation requirements.

Policy 5-b Maintain an inventory of all County structures including inspection records showing load

ratings, general condition, and sufficiency ratings. Policy 5-c: Consider the inclusion of bridges in the Capital Improvement Program if they are structurally

or functionally deficient based upon bridge general condition ratings, roadway width, bike/pedestrian passage, load capacity, safety, and operating conditions.

Policy 5-d: Conduct routine maintenance and repair to ensure bridge integrity over the duration of its

design life. Policy 5-e: Consider the needs of the trucking industry when maintaining, building, or reconstructing

bridges. Policy 5-f: Maintain and restore Lane County covered bridges for their historic, aesthetic and cultural

value as feasible, through budget allocations to the Capital Improvement Program or other funding sources.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Goal 6: Provide safe and convenient opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel throughout Lane

County.

Policy 6-a: Marked bicycle lanes are required on urban arterial and collector streets when those streets are newly constructed, are reconstructed to urban standards, or are widened to provide additional vehicular capacity.

Policy 6-b: Sidewalks or paved pathways accompanying public streets and roads are necessary wherever

significant conflicts with motor vehicle traffic jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of pedestrians and bicyclists. (i) Generally, sidewalks are not provided along rural County Roads (outside of urban

growth boundaries) although they may be provided where there is a demonstrated need in unincorporated communities and in other areas of concentrated commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional development. This will be determined on a case by case basis.

(ii) County arterial and collector roads within urban growth boundaries shall include sidewalks and the cost shall be assessed to the abutting property owners, unless the assessment is waived by the Board of County Commissioners.

(iii) Sidewalks on new or reconstructed County Roads functionally classified as local roads within urban growth boundaries shall be required as provided for in City development standards. In the absence of City standards, sidewalks are required for new roads or reconstructed roads with existing sidewalks. Sidewalks shall also be required for reconstructed urban local roads without existing sidewalks, except if the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use, or if sparsity of population, other available ways or other factors indicate an absence of any need

14

for sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be constructed at the expense of the developer or adjacent property owners.

(iv) Roads which do not have curbs and gutters and which are not scheduled to be rebuilt, but which do have a significant need for sidewalks, may be provided with temporary asphalt walkways.

Policy 6-c: Public Works staff should work with school district personnel to establish school route plans.

Based on these plans, Lane County will install appropriate traffic control devices, such as signs, crosswalks or other markings, or other devices as approved by the Traffic Engineer.

Policy 6-d: New development subject to Site Review and Land Division requirements shall provide

adequately for safe bicycle and pedestrian on-site circulation and off-site transportation connections. Development shall provide for safe and convenient on-site circulation with respect to the location and dimensions of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and walkways in relation to each other and to buildings and other facilities. Consideration shall be given to the need for lighting, sidewalks, widening and improving abutting streets, bus stop access, and bicycle lane and pedestrian path connections, consistent with adopted access management, road and driveway spacing standards, road design standards, and other requirements in Lane Code 15.

Policy 6-e: All new development within urban growth boundaries, when adjacent to County-maintained

road rights-of-way, shall include bicycle and pedestrian facilities as specified in the Road Design Standards for Urban Roads in Lane Code 15.

Policy 6-f: The County generally will support State projects that include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Goal 7: Promote logical and efficient bicycle and pedestrian connections within the Lane County

transportation system and between the County’s and other jurisdictions’ transportation systems.

Policy 7-a: In planning and implementing transportation system improvements, Lane County will coordinate with other affected jurisdictions to maximize bicycle and pedestrian route connectivity.

Policy 7-b: The County will look for opportunities to partner with ODOT and City agencies on bicycle

and pedestrian facilities when roads of different jurisdictions intersect, in order to provide adequately for bicycle and pedestrians travel to local destinations.

Goal 8: Promote connectivity between non-motorized and other transportation modes.

Policy 8-a: In the design and construction of transportation facilities, barriers to foot and bicycle travel should be avoided.

Goal 9: Encourage and support the development of recreational bicycling and hiking facilities,

recognizing these activities as important to community livability and to the tourism sector of the local and state economy.

Policy 9-a: Road maintenance decisions will strive to balance the need for controlling long term

pavement maintenance costs with consideration for providing improved road surfaces for cycling.

Policy 9-b: Road improvement projects identified on the TSP Project List shall incorporate shoulders and

sidewalks adequate for pedestrian use, consistent with other TSP policies and with road design standards to be adopted concurrently with the TSP.

15

Policy 9-c: Within statutory road fund limitations, the County will consider opportunities to participate in off-road bicycle trail and footpath development and promotion, when there is adequate demand and as economically feasible.

Policy 9-d: On a case-by-case basis, and within statutory road fund limitations, the County will consider

the feasibility of establishing or maintaining access ways, paths, or trails prior to the vacation of any public easement or right-of-way.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Goal 10: Support and encourage improved public transportation services and alternatives to single

occupancy vehicle travel between the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area and outlying communities.

Policy 10-a: Continue to assist in coordinating public transportation and multi-modal transportation

initiatives by providing technical support and otherwise participating in technical advisory committees, task forces and working groups, such as the regional Commuter Solutions (Transportation Demand Management) program.

Policy 10-b: County Road construction and reconstruction projects shall include consultation with LTD

and shall, as feasible, accommodate transit stops, bus pullouts and shelters along existing or planned bus routes as permitted under statutory requirements for road fund expenditures. Unless otherwise authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, transit stop amenities with the exception of bus pullouts will typically be funded by LTD or other non-County sources.

Policy 10-c: The County will support efforts to develop public transit facilities such as park-n-ride lots and

shelters in rural areas when they are consistent with land use, zoning, and other applicable regulations.

Policy 10-d: The County will investigate the possibility of providing free or discounted bus transportation

services for County employees as part of LTD’s Group Pass Program. Goal 11: Support efforts to maintain rail transportation and to promote high speed rail development.

Policy 11-a: As feasible, Lane County will participate in efforts to plan, develop, and maintain rail-related infrastructure improvements for high-speed and other passenger rail service.

Policy 11-b: Lane County will coordinate with and support State efforts to comply with federal and state

rail transportation requirements by consulting adopted versions of the Oregon Transportation Plan and Rail Plan when making transportation or land use decisions involving rail facilities.

Goal 12: Support initiatives to develop improved transportation services for County citizens with special

needs.

Policy 12-a: As feasible and as opportunities arise, Lane County will support public and private efforts to meet special transportation service needs for County residents, giving priority to rural residents.

RAIL TRANSPORTATION Goal 13: Promote railway and highway safety at and near road and railway intersections.

16

Policy 13-a: Lane County’s Engineering Division shall notify railroad companies of all road improvement projects within 500 feet of railways.

Policy 13-b: Road improvement projects will give consideration to upgrading existing railroad crossings

and protective devices, grade-separated crossings, elimination of existing railroad crossings, and to the extent possible, will minimize new railroad crossings.

AIR TRANSPORTATION Goal 14: Coordinate transportation system improvement decisions with airport facility needs.

Policy 14-a: Road improvements on major airport access routes shall be consistent with the Eugene Airport Master Plan and with other Airport Plans adopted by cities where airports are located.

Policy 14-b: Consistent with the 2000 Eugene Airport Master Plan, Lane County Public Works

Engineering will coordinate with the Eugene Airport Authority to improve ground access to the airport. As opportunities arise, transportation system projects will incorporate improvements to access routes to other public airports in the County.

Policy 14-c: Road improvement design decisions affecting access routes serving public airports in the

County will consider the needs of motor vehicles associated with existing and contemplated air freight and air passenger businesses serving the airports.

Policy 14-d: All County Road improvements near airports will be coordinated with federal, state, and local

agencies responsible for airport air space. Goal 15: Coordinate land use decisions with airport facility needs.

Policy 15-a: Lane County shall review all proposed airport expansion plans and provide comment as appropriate regarding land use compatibility, consistency with zoning, and impacts on the County’s transportation system.

Policy 15-b: Lane County shall review all proposed land use outside urban growth boundaries and in the

vicinity of an airport regarding compatibility with the airport. Airport airspace shall be protected from inappropriate development through the implementation of land use and zoning regulations.

Goal 16: Support multi-modal transportation services to and from the airport.

Policy 16-a: As possible, Lane County shall participate in planning and other efforts to improve public as well as private, multi-occupancy vehicle transportation services to and from the Eugene Airport.

WATER TRANSPORTATION Goal 17: Support Port of Siuslaw development efforts and recognize the Port as important to the state and

local economy.

Policy 17-a: Road improvement projects affecting facilities that support or are operated by the Port of Siuslaw shall be coordinated with the Port and with the Oregon Department of Transportation. Lane County will seek concurrence for all development in the Siuslaw River and adjacent to the navigable waterway.

17

Policy 17-b: Lane County shall review proposed Port of Siuslaw expansion plans when they involve lands and/or roads in the County’s jurisdiction, and provide comment as appropriate regarding land use compatibility, consistency with zoning, and impacts on the County’s transportation system.

Policy 17-c: Lane County shall support Port of Siuslaw in its efforts to improve navigability of the river

and promotion of the local fishing industry, consistent with state and local land use and zoning laws.

Goal 18: Protect the long term ecological health of the Siuslaw River.

Policy 18-a: Development in and near the Siuslaw River in areas of County land use jurisdiction shall comply with the Lane County Coastal Resources Management Plan and with federal and state regulations.

PIPELINES Goal 19: Protect pipelines as conveyances and for public safety.

Policy 19-a: Lane County shall coordinate with pipeline providers on matters of mutual concern, such as road maintenance activities and road improvement projects to protect public safety and maintain the viability of both modes of transportation.

Policy 19-b: Lane County shall review all proposed pipeline expansion plans and provide comment as

appropriate regarding land use compatibility, consistency with zoning, and impacts on the County’s transportation system.

TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE Goal 20: Ensure that transportation projects comply with state land use requirements regarding urban

and rural land uses, and other federal, state, and local land use requirements.

Policy 20-a: Transportation projects, facilities, services and improvements as identified in Oregon Administrative Rules 660-012-0065 and as implemented in Lane Code may be permitted on rural lands consistent with statewide land use Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 without a goal exception.

Policy 20-b: The following transportation facility improvements do not require an amendment to the TSP

unless an exception to state land use laws or a TSP amendment is otherwise required. (i) Channelization (ii) Operation, maintenance, and repair (iii) Preservation (iv) Reconstruction (v) Rehabilitation (vi) Intersection improvements (vii) Realignment (viii) Modernization (ix) Transportation facilities, services and improvements serving local travel needs. The

travel capacity and level of service of facilities and improvements serving local travel needs shall be limited to that necessary to support rural land uses identified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan or to provide adequate emergency access.

18

Policy 20-c: Plan amendments, zone changes, and other land use decisions shall consider impacts on the County transportation system, including Federal, State, County, and other local roads; bicycle and pedestrian paths; public transit facilities; and air, rail, port, and pipeline facilities.

Policy 20-d: Amendments to the comprehensive plan or any of its adopted components and sub-plans,

which significantly affect a transportation facility, shall ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with road function, capacity, level of service, and other adopted performance standards. This may be accomplished by: (i) limiting land uses to the existing road capacity or level of service; (ii) amending the TSP pursuant to Lane Code 16.400(9), to provide adequate facilities; (iii) altering the land use designation, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand

for auto travel and meeting travel needs through other modes, or (iv) amend the TSP, pursuant to LC 16.400(9), to modify the planned function, capacity

and performance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian friendly development where multimodal travel choices are provided. If a TSP amendment is required, it shall not be initiated unless the requirements of LC 16.400(9) have been met.

A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility, if it: (i) Changes the functional class of an existing or planned facility, or will result in the

roadway facility no longer meeting the functional class definition; (ii) Changes standards that implement the functional class, except that approval of an

exception or variance to standards does not in itself significantly affect a transportation facility;

(iii) Allows types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional class; or

(iv) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.

Determinations under this policy shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments.

Policy 20-e: The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an exception

under OAR 660-012, OAR 660-004-0022 or OAR 660-004-0028, to allow residential, commercial, institutional or industrial development on rural lands.

Policy 20-f: When an exception to statewide land use goals and/or a plan amendment is required for a

transportation facility, the approval process should be consolidated with other public hearings and approvals required for the project before the Roads Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the County Board of Commissioners.

Policy 20-g: Amendments to the County Transportation System Plan shall be processed according to

applicable state law requirements, the provisions set forth in Lane Code Chapter 12, and Lane Code 16.400.

Policy 20-h: Road improvement projects shall comply with federal, state, and local land use regulations.

Goal 21: Provide for coordinated land use review when making decisions about transportation facilities.

Policy 21-a: It is the County’s intent that the Transportation System Plan be consistent with state Transportation System Plans, with TransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan applicable inside the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan boundary), and with the Transportation System Plans of other cities within the County.

19

Policy 21-b: County TSP goals and policies apply to: (i) all roads in the County that have been dedicated to and formally accepted by the Board

of County Commissioners, unless and until such roads are subsequently accepted or annexed by an incorporated community; and

(ii) all other transportation facilities and services, including road, air, rail, pipeline and port facilities, located outside of urban growth boundaries or outside of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan boundary.

Policy 21-c: Where inconsistencies exist between the County TSP and other TSPs applicable within the

County, or between road design standards of the County and other jurisdictions within the County, the following guidelines shall be used in making decisions about road improvements and services. If the inconsistency involves: (i) a state highway, state transportation system plans and design standards shall prevail; (ii) a public or private road outside of an urban growth boundary, the County TSP and road

design standards shall prevail; (iii) a public or private road functionally classified as a local road within an urban growth

boundary, the City TSP and applicable road design standards shall prevail; (iv) a road defined as a County Road pursuant to Lane Code 15.010 and functionally

classified as a collector or arterial road, the County TSP and road design standards shall prevail;

(v) a public or private road functionally classified as a local road or primarily used to provide local access to abutting properties within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan boundary, TransPlan and the respective applicable Eugene or Springfield road design standards shall prevail within the urban growth boundary and the applicable County Road design standards shall apply outside the urban growth boundary;

(vi) an intersection or roads in more than one jurisdiction’s ownership or control, the TSP goals and road design standards of the agency having ultimate maintenance responsibility shall prevail.

Decisions about road improvements may follow different guidelines than those above upon agreement of the elected officials of the involved jurisdictions or their designees, or if other recorded inter-jurisdictional agreements exist that supersede the above guidelines.

Goal 22: Encourage adequate road improvements for new development.

Policy 22-a: The dedication of adequate right-of-way and construction of road improvements may be required to serve traffic that will be generated due to the development.

Policy 22-b: The County will consider opportunities to purchase land for extensions of right-of-way where

connectivity between collector and arterial roads is needed to promote efficient traffic flow. Policy 22-c: The County encourages and will facilitate the formation of Local Improvement (special

assessment) Districts to address road improvement needs on sub-standards roads. Policy 22-d: Road vacations proposed as part of lot or parcel reconfigurations or property line

adjustments, that will result in loss of connectivity between Public and/or County Roads as defined in LC 15.010(35) shall require approval of a replat of all subdivision lots and partition parcels adjacent to the road to be vacated. As part of the replat process, the County may require dedication of right-of-way or the creation of private easements, and road improvements, to ensure previously existing connectivity between Public or County Roads is maintained.

20

Policy 22-e: Roads that were dedicated to the County but were never accepted shall be subject to goals, policies, and standards applicable to private roads and easements, unless otherwise specified.

FINANCING AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Goal 23: Maintain long-term County Road Fund stability by making annual budget adjustments and

following adopted priorities.

Policy 23-a: Adjust operating and capital expenditures through the annual budget process to maintain long term County Road Fund viability. Maintain a "prudent person" County Road Fund reserve. An appropriate “prudent person” reserve is generally considered to be 10% to 15% of gross receipts.

Policy 23-b: Identify and consider additional potential funding sources and strategies, such as a local

option gas tax or vehicle registration fee, in the event of loss or reduction of existing funding sources.

Goal 24: Use the County Road Fund effectively by following the priorities established in the 1991 Road

Fund Financial Plan (updated 1995).

Policy 24-a: As a first priority (Core Program), maintain and preserve the County Road and bridge system. Policy 24-b: As a first priority (Core Program), provide a safe roadside environment for the traveling

public on the County Road System. Policy 24-c: As a second priority (Enhanced Program) and as funding allows, improve the County Road

System to meet modern County design and safety standards. Policy 24-d: As a second priority (Enhanced Program) and as funding allows, share timber receipt

payments from the County Road Fund with Cities for general street purposes and maintenance of City street systems.

Policy 24-e: As a third priority (Assistance Program) and as funding allows, provide economic

development road infrastructure financing to assist in economic development. Policy 24-f: As a third priority (Assistance Program) and as funding allows, share timber receipt payments

from the County Road Fund, through the CIP process, with cities and ODOT for City or ODOT roadway projects of mutual interest.

Goal 25: Maintain effective partnering relationships with cities and the Oregon Department of

Transportation (ODOT).

Policy 25-a: Review annually County-City road partnership agreements to maintain road fund viability and to assist cities in providing road services to urban residents in Lane County.

Policy 25-b: Evaluate existing road project funding agreements with incorporated cities, and make

necessary amendments to allocate an appropriate share of system development charges (SDCs) to the County to cover the cost of improvements on County Roads generated by new development.

Policy 25-c: Engage ODOT in continuing discussions regarding jurisdiction of roadways; partnerships in

funding programs; response to ODOT policy initiatives; and partnerships for a seamless service delivery system through sharing of resources, collocation of facilities, or consolidation of functions.

21

CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FACILITIES 4.1. ROADS Description Of The Road Network The principal and most extensive component of the County’s transportation infrastructure is the road system. Within Lane County there are a number of different agencies responsible for roads. They include the Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane County, incorporated cities, the U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. While the automobile is clearly the predominant mode of transportation served by the County Road system, the road right-of-way accommodates multiple modes of transportation, including freight, cars, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians. As appropriate, and when legally and financially feasible, County Road improvement projects facilitate alternative modes with sidewalks, marked bike lanes, wider shoulders, and bus stop turn-outs. This chapter describes County-maintained roads, state highways, and roads other than City streets in Lane County. City street networks are discussed in City Transportation System Plans. Following the road network descriptions are sections regarding Access Management, Level of Service and Roadway Performance, Design Standards, and associated goals and policies. County Roads County Roads are those that are maintained by the County after undergoing a formal process of dedication and acceptance by the County Board of Commissioners. There are approximately 1,436 miles of roadway maintained in the County Road system. The County rarely accepts new roads into the County Road system unless there is a clear public benefit and justification for expenditures on maintenance. Decisions about road acceptance are intended to protect the public investment already made in the road system and to make optimum use of available road revenues for the maintenance and improvement of the system. Lane Manual Chapter 15 specifies road dedication and acceptance requirements. New roads must also comply with state land use goals. The County Road Management Information System (RMIS) provides a variety of data about County Roads, including length, beginning and ending mileposts, status (existing, constructed, or proposed), jurisdiction, agency responsible for maintenance, functional class and maintenance zones. A complete inventory of the County Road system is in Appendix B. Functional Classifications Functional classification provides an organizational mechanism for developing roadway design standards, establishing traffic speeds, controlling access, designing intersections, and allocating monies for maintenance and improvements. Roads are categorized in a functional class hierarchy based upon the character and level of service they contribute to the overall transportation system. The hierarchy consists of many smaller roads feeding into a fewer number of major roads. Arterials are major roads designed to move large amounts of traffic at high speeds, with minimal interruption from intersecting roads. Collector roads “collect” traffic from local road systems and connect to the arterial network. Smaller, local roads feed into the collectors and arterials, and are designed to provide access to individual properties, such as private residences, and to discourage through traffic use. A road cannot function on opposite ends of the hierarchy (that is, high volumes and speeds with many intersecting roads and access points) without severely comprising safety and efficiency. Lane County has established a system of functional classifications for the County Road system. Arterial and collector classifications are identified in Lane Code 15.020. In addition, the County maintains a complete roadway functional classifications inventory.

22

Lane Code 15.010 defines the various functional classifications as follows: • Principal Arterials provide for through traffic between major centers of human activity in urban, suburban and

rural areas. • Minor Arterials provide for intra-community traffic flow to principal arterials and within urban areas. In rural

areas, minor arterials serve as a direct connection between communities and also bring traffic to principal arterials.

• Major Collectors are used primarily to channel traffic from neighborhoods to arterials, and to commercial or industrial districts in urban areas. In rural areas, major collectors provide connections from outlying areas to the arterial system (primarily state highways).

• Minor Collectors gather traffic within the neighborhood and direct it to major collectors or arterials. • Local Roads are intended solely for the purpose of providing access to adjacent properties. They may

terminate in a cul-de-sac or be part of a larger network. Table 1 shows the number of miles for each functional class of road maintained by the County:

Table 1: County Functional Classes Functional Class Miles

1 – Rural Local 569 2 – Rural Minor Collector 349 3 – Rural Major Collector 152 4 – Rural Major Collector (Federal Aid) 211 5 – Rural Minor Arterial 0 6 – Urban Local 104 7 – Urban Minor Collector 15 8 – Urban Minor Arterial 19 9 – Urban Principal Arterial 7 10 – Urban Major Collector 20

Total 1,446 [Note: adoption of the TSP will result in mileage changes for each functional class for the following reasons. (1) Some roads were incorrectly classified as urban or rural. Corrections have been made so that roads within urban growth boundaries are designated as urban, and all those outside of urban growth boundaries are rural. (2) In addition, some roadways are proposed for changes in functional classification, including the addition of a new functional class – Rural Minor Arterial. See Functional Class maps for proposed changes.] Bridges Lane County has numerous lakes, rivers, creeks and other water bodies. As a result the Lane County Road network includes 413 County-maintained bridges. Lane County has made substantial investment in this system over the past several decades to modernize the system. The Capital Improvement Program has focused on the replacement of structures with wood components. Typically, these wood component bridges were built during the 1960’s and 1970’s, although some are much older. Replacement of these wooden structures is nearing completion, so that currently approximately 95% of Lane County’s bridges are either all concrete or concrete and steel. All concrete means that both the bridge superstructure and substructure are steel-reinforced concrete. Concrete and steel usually means that the bridge superstructure is steel-reinforced concrete and the substructure is, at least in part, steel piling and/or pile caps. Generally speaking, Lane County bridges are in good condition at this time. 91% of the system is rated in fair or better condition. With an adequate schedule of preventive maintenance, all should have many years of remaining life. Fifty years is the commonly accepted standard for the life of a concrete or concrete and steel bridge. Table 2 below shows the number and construction type of County bridges, including those with posted load limitations.

23

Table 2: Bridge Statistics

Bridge Construction Type

Quantity

Percent of System

Structures requiring posted

load limits

Percent of

System All Concrete or Concrete/Steel 391 94.7% 1 0.2% All Timber 2 0.5% 2 0.5% Concrete/Wood 17 4.1% 9 2.2% Steel/Wood 1 0.2% Steel/Wood/Concrete 2 0.5%

Totals 413 100.0% 12 2.9% Overview of Bridge Investment Issues There are several issues that Lane County will have to address over the life of the TSP that will be summarized here. More detail is available in the bridge section of the Needs Assessment in Chapter 6.3. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) along with local agencies has been developing a seismic vulnerability inventory and retrofit prioritization program. Recent seismic activity has confirmed that there is a real risk for earthquakes in Oregon. The forces expected now are greater than previously thought. Hence, design codes have been modified to account for the greater forces expected during an earthquake in Oregon. However, many of the bridges currently in service were not designed with the more recent specifications. Retrofitting many of the smaller bridges on the Lane County system will probably be done over time as a major maintenance and preservation activity. Investments in some of the larger structures in Lane County may be required through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Recent inspections have noted two other bridge condition problems that may require substantial capital investment as well. Twenty-four bridges, mostly constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s and built with “poured-in-place” reinforced concrete girders, have recently been identified as having a potential for cracking problems. The extent of this cracking and the extent to which it reduces the structural capacity of the bridges is currently under discussion. Recent inspections have also identified a potential problem with steel piling. Some of these pilings have experienced corrosion near the contact point with streams, or “section loss”, which reduces load carrying capacity. This may require major maintenance or it may lead to increased investment through the CIP. There are other reasons for bridge modernization. As traffic demand increases, it becomes necessary to replace one-way bridges with wider structures that can accommodate two-way traffic, bicycles and pedestrians. Newer roadway design standards may call for increased roadway and shoulder width. In that case, it may become necessary to modernize some bridges to meet the new design standards. Bridge replacement or modernization typically addresses safety issues for all modes of transportation. Newer structures are designed with adequate width to accommodate vehicular traffic, bicycles and pedestrians. Greater clearance for sight distance at overpasses and underpasses is also provided. Guardrail flares are tapered to reduce the severity of collisions with the structure. Adequate drainage is also a consideration in bridge design. Covered Bridges There are 20 covered bridges in Lane County, giving the County the distinction of having more covered bridges than any other county west of the Mississippi. Fourteen of these bridges are maintained by Lane County, and with the exception of the Lake Creek Bridge, thirteen of these are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Covered bridges are similar in design to steel truss bridges, however, the shortage of steel during World War I contributed to the use of wood as bridge building material, which allowed for their unique design. Covered bridges were constructed of high quality timber, to withstand heavy rains and salty sea air. House-type structures over the bridges protect the wood trusses and floor planking from the elements and more than double their life expectancy. As early as 1918, plans for covered bridges had become standardized to include open windows for light and ventilation together with such features as laminated floors and interior whitewashing. The covered bridges still standing represent many hours of skilled hand labor.

24

Over time, some of Lane County's covered bridges have become inadequate for modern traffic levels and commercial loads. In some cases, new bridges have been built adjacent to existing covered bridges to accommodate modern traffic needs. At the same time, this historical and cultural resource is a priority, and a Covered Bridge Fund is included as an item in the Capital Improvement Program in order to preserve this important contribution to Lane County’s heritage. There are fourteen covered bridges on County-maintained roads that still serve vehicular traffic. These bridges and the year they were constructed follow.

Belknap Bridge (1966) Coyote Creek Bridge (1922) Deadwood Bridge (1932) Dorena Bridge (1949) Earnest Bridge (1938) Goodpasture Bridge (1938) Lake Creek Bridge (1945) Mosby Creek Bridge (1920) Office Bridge (1944) Parvin Bridge (1921) Pengra Bridge (1938) Unity Bridge (1936) Wendling Bridge (1938) Wildcat Bridge (1925)

The remaining six bridges are either under City jurisdiction or are no longer in use. Their status is as follows:

Cannon Street Bridge (1988, not in service, City of Lowell) Centennial Bridge (1987, bikes and pedestrians only, City of Cottage Grove) Chambers Bridge (1925, former railroad bridge not in service, City of Cottage Grove) Currin Bridge (1925, not in service, Lane County) Lowell Bridge (1928, not in service, Lane County) Stewart Bridge (1930, bikes and pedestrians only, Lane County)

Operations, Maintenance, and Safety on the County Road System The Public Works Operations budget provides for County Road operational maintenance, including repairs, light-duty rehabilitation, and minor improvements. Operations, maintenance, and preservation are routine activities that are generally not listed as individual projects. Examples of operations and maintenance activities are surface and shoulder maintenance, drainage work, vegetation control, guardrail repair, signing, striping, pavement marking, and signal maintenance. Preservation activities include pavement overlays or chip seals (a less expensive surface treatment than pavement overlay) to extend the useful life of the road. Major pavement preservation work (pavement overlay or reconstruction) is contracted out and is funded through the Public Works Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Lane County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is the planning, funding, and implementation mechanism through which the County improves the County Road network, usually through private sector contracts, for major maintenance and modernization. The CIP is updated and adopted each year. The overall purpose of the CIP is to improve and maintain the County Road network by increasing its safety, utility, and efficiency; to accommodate growth in traffic volumes; reduce maintenance costs, conserve fuel, accommodate alternative transportation modes; and promote community economic development. Capital improvements are individually listed modernization projects that include such activities as adding capacity, intersection upgrades, bringing roads and bridges up to standards, adding shoulders, and paving gravel roads. The most recently adopted CIP, as well as previous year versions, is available from the Lane County Public Works Department. The CIP publication includes a project list, an explanation of revenues and costs, and a description of the process for annual adoption. Projects in the CIP will be derived from the TSP Project List.

25

Relationship of the CIP to the TSP The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) differentiates between planning and project development. It states that “Transportation system planning establishes land use controls and a network of facilities and services to meet overall transportation needs,” while “Transportation project development implements the TSP by determining the precise location, alignment, and preliminary design of improvements included in the TSP.”3

The TSP provides the overall planning framework for a 20-year horizon. It promotes the coordination of all transportation facilities within the County, including those managed by other jurisdictions and agencies. County Road improvement projects are placed on the TSP 20-year project list based upon the needs assessment criteria described in Chapter 6.3. The TSP project list provides the long range planning foundation for updates to the CIP. Once a road improvement project is included in the CIP, the project advances to construction through "project development” as defined in the TPR, using the process outlined in Lane Manual Chapter 15.575-15.580. Not all road improvements under County jurisdiction are identified as part of the Chapter 6.3 Needs Assessment and listed as individual projects on the 20-year project list in the TSP or in the CIP 5-year list. Minor pavement repairs and intersection improvements such as turn lanes, turning radius improvements, and embankment and slide repairs are typically performed by County forces on an as needed basis, and are not usually identified as individual projects. In addition, some projects may be listed in the CIP without being included on the TSP project list. For example, pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction work, and traffic signal installation work, is usually consolidated by geographic area, then contracted out to the private sector through the Pavement Fund or Safety Improvements Fund. Moreover, analysis of County bridges was not part of the TSP Needs Assessment and therefore not included in the project list. The TSP relies on the Bridge Inspection and Load Rating Report and other sources as the assessment tools for bridge project identification and incorporation in the CIP. All of the above projects may proceed as long as they are otherwise consistent with federal, state, and local law, including the TSP and statewide planning goal requirements. Other Roads In addition to County-maintained roads there are numerous other public roads in the County under other jurisdictions, and still others that are not maintained or regulated. The following is a general description of these roads. Federal Roads There are many miles of federal roads generally constructed for resource management purposes (such as timber production) that are regulated by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. In addition, Interstate 5 and Highway 101 travel through multiple states. While these highways are part of the national road network, they are managed by ODOT within the boundaries of Oregon. Other Public Roads Public roads that are not maintained by the County, and are not Federal, State, or City roads/streets, are usually older roads that were constructed by private individuals for access to property. In many cases, these roads were created before the establishment of state land division laws, or before road improvements became a standard requirement for land divisions. Such roads were dedicated to the County, although many were never formally accepted. They are commonly known as “local access roads”, which is defined under ORS 368 as “a public road that is not a county road, state highway or federal road.” State law restricts the expenditure of County moneys and also limits the County’s liability for these roads.

3 Oregon Administrative Rules 660-012-0010(1)

26

Private Roads Private roads are easements over private land, constructed for private access purposes. New roads created within land divisions are generally required to be private, unless there is a clear need for their acceptance into the County Road system. State Facilities The State highway classification system, signifying level of importance, consists of interstate, statewide, regional, and district highways. Interstate Highways and Statewide Highways are part of the National Highway System (NHS). In Lane County, there are 438 miles of State-maintained highways of local, regional, and national significance, as shown in Table 3. The corresponding functional classification is also shown. While there is no solid rule for determining functional class based on the State classification, this column indicates the general relationship between the two classification systems.

Table 3: State Highway Facilities and Miles in Lane County Name State Highway

Classification Corresponding

Functional Classification

Miles

Interstate 5 Interstate Interstate 36 I-105 Eugene-Springfield Interstate Interstate 2.5 OR 126 Eugene-Springfield Statewide, Expressway Principal Arterial 10 OR 69 Beltline Highway Statewide Principal Arterial 13 OR 58 Willamette Highway Statewide Principal Arterial 62 OR 126 Florence-Eugene Statewide Principal Arterial 53 OR 126 McKenzie Highway Statewide Principal Arterial 76 OR 126 Clear Lake-Belknap Springs

Statewide Principal Arterial 7

US 101 Oregon Coast Highway Statewide Principal Arterial 31 OR 99W Pacific Highway West Statewide, Regional Principal Arterial,

Minor Arterial 22

OR 99E Albany-Junction City Regional Minor Arterial 3 McVay Highway District Minor Arterial or

Major/Minor Collector 3

OR 99 Goshen-Divide District Minor Arterial or Major/Minor Collector

20

OR 36 Mapleton-Junction City District Minor Arterial or Major/Minor Collector

50

Springfield-Creswell Highway District Minor Arterial or Major/Minor Collector

11

Springfield Highway District Minor Arterial or Major/Minor Collector

1

Territorial Highway District Minor Arterial or Major/Minor Collector

40

These highways accommodate freight and other higher-speed, higher-volume travel, and interface with many County-maintained roads. They are used for daily commutes and local trips as well as cross-state movements. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has operation, maintenance, and planning jurisdiction over state and interstate highways. Facility improvements are administered through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and planning for the state system includes both modal and area-specific planning analysis. Modal plans address automobiles, trucks, freight rail, aviation, bicycles and pedestrians, and intermodal facilities, in addition to a transportation safety action plan. Together, modal and area plans provide the basis for update of the STIP and the prioritization of state project development and resources. Freight Routes As noted in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, a primary function of state highways, and in particular the National Highway System, is to support economic development by linking producers, shippers, markets, and transportation

27

facilities. While County arterial and collector roads regularly serve freight transportation, the National Highway System is particularly important for providing intermodal freight access, such as to airports with freight service and to the Port of Siuslaw. And while freight moves via many transportation modes, trucks handle the bulk of freight movements in Oregon. Scenic Routes Under the National Scenic Byways Program, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation recognizes certain roads based on their archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and scenic qualities. The program was established in Oregon in 1989 by a multi-agency committee, and is administered by the Department of Transportation. Three Scenic Byways over four state highways extend into Lane County: • The Pacific Coast National Scenic Byway, along Highway 101 on the Oregon coast, also designated as an

All-American Road; • The McKenzie Pass-Santiam Pass Scenic Byway beginning on the McKenzie Highway (Highway 126) near

the McKenzie Bridge Ranger Station, extending east along Highway 242 to Sisters and looping back along Highway 20/126; and

• Aufderheide Drive, a U.S. Forest Service road extending north from Westfir to just east of Blue River, forming a part of the West Cascades Scenic Byway that travels north to Estacada.

Additional information regarding long range state highway planning is included in the TSP Needs Assessment section. Access Management Spacing Of Intersections And Driveways On County Roads Access management generally means managing the location and number of access points on County Roads. It involves the appropriate location, design, and number of road and driveway intersections to allow connectivity between major and minor roads and to allow access to private property, while promoting safety and efficiency in the overall road network. Any intersection introduces a number of potentially conflicting vehicular movements. Effective access management limits where and how often these conflicts occur. Generally, a higher level of access management is appropriate on collector and arterial roads, where there are higher traffic volumes and speeds. Implementation of access management techniques produces a more constant traffic flow, helping to improve safety, while reducing congestion, fuel consumption and air pollution. As a method for protecting the performance of existing facilities, access management helps to stabilize capacity-related public expenditures for roads and highways. Access management includes decisions about design elements such as the location of turn lanes, medians, and traffic control devices such as signals and signs. A variety of factors contribute to these decisions. For example, turn lanes may or may not be continuous, and medians may or may not be provided, depending on the functional class of the road, the level of traffic and speed, as well as state land use restrictions and neighborhood preferences. Ultimately, balancing these factors should err on the side of public safety. Lane County manages access to County Roads through the review of land divisions and other proposed development, and through the issuance of "facility permits”, which are required for any construction (such as a new road intersection or driveway approach) within a County Road right-of-way. Access to state highways is governed by Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 734, Division 51. Construction within state rights-of-way requires a road approach permit from the Department of Transportation. Cities have authority to manage access to City roads and streets. Since these different systems connect to one another, access management often requires coordination and agreement between transportation agencies. In addition to access management goals and policies included in this chapter, Road and Driveway Spacing Standards in Lane Code Chapter 15.138 regulate access onto the County Road system.

28

Level Of Service And System Performance Roadway performance in Oregon is typically measured using “level of service” (LOS) or “volume to capacity (v/c) ratio” analysis. Level of service (LOS), or mobility4 is a transportation engineering concept used to evaluate traffic flow (congestion) and to describe the quality of the operating conditions of a roadway. Each road segment has a capacity, or the number of vehicles it can serve over a designated period of time. As traffic volumes approach the road’s capacity limit, drivers begin to experience congestion. This results in increased travel time, pollution, and driver aggravation. Various analytical methods are used to evaluate this dynamic to help determine whether roadway improvements or other strategies are needed to achieve or maintain the performance standard adopted by the agency. The analysis may be part of an overall needs assessment for public road improvements, or may be required as part of a traffic impact analysis for a land use development proposal that is expected to result in significant additional traffic. The Highway Capacity Manual, produced by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, Washington, D.C., provides internationally recognized methods for evaluating the performance of various road types. Such analyses may be highly complicated because of the multiple factors that contribute to a road’s performance. This section provides a general, simplified overview of approaches used by the State and Lane County. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) measures state highway performance based upon the “volume to capacity ratio” (v/c). The v/c ratio is the peak hour traffic volume (vehicles/hour) on a highway section divided by the maximum volume that the highway section can handle (1999 Oregon Highway Plan, page 72). A v/c ratio of 1 or more indicates the road segment is at or above capacity. ODOT standards must be applied to decisions involving state highways in Lane County. Currently, the maximum acceptable v/c ratio for state highways varies between 0.70 and 0.95, as shown in the following table taken from the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. Users of the County TSP should check with ODOT to obtain the most current ODOT standards.

Table 4: Maximum volume to capacity ratios for peak hour operating conditions through a planning horizon for state highway sections located outside the Portland metropolitan area urban growth boundary

Highway Category Land Use Type/Speed Limits Inside Urban Growth Boundary Outside Urban Growth

Boundary

STAs MPO

Non-MPO outside of STAs where non-freeway speed limit <45 mph

Non-MPO where non-freeway speed limit >= 45 mph

Unincorporated Communities

Rural Lands

Interstate Highways and Statewide (NHS) Expressways

N/A 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

Statewide (NHS) Freight Routes 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 Statewide (NHS) Non-Freight Routes and Regional or District Expressways

0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.70

Regional Highways 0.95 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.70 District/Local Interest Roads 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.75

Notes: • Interstates and Expressways shall not be identified as Special Transportation Areas (STAs). • For the purposes of this policy, the peak hour shall be the 30th highest annual hour. This approximates weekday peak hour traffic

in larger urban areas.

4 The TSP uses the traditional "Level-of-Service" terminology because of broad familiarity with the term. The Oregon Highway Plan uses the more recent term "Mobility". Their meaning is the same and may be used interchangeably.

29

• The MPO category includes areas within the planning boundaries of the Eugene/Springfield, Medford and Salem/Keizer Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and any other MPO areas that are designated after the adoption of this plan.

Source: 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, page 80 (see the Oregon Highway Plan for additional explanation of this table) Level of service is expressed as a letter grade. The Transportation Research Board provides the industry’s standard definitions for each letter grade, as in Table 5.

Table 5: Level of Service Letter Grades and Descriptions Level of Service General character of traffic flow conditions

A Free flow B Stable flow C Stable flow with more restrictions on maneuverability D High density and marginally unstable flow E Operating conditions at or near capacity F Conditions beyond capacity with poor mobility and congestion

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (2000) The Highway Capacity Manual provides detailed, technical guidance for determining level of service letter grades and for other road performance analyses. Some of the methods for measuring level of service in the Highway Capacity Manual are based upon v/c ratios, and some use other measures. Level of service in a given area should include nearby intersections (signalized and unsignalized), road approaches, and/or highway ramps. Lane County completed a performance assessment for its rural road system in 1997. Levels of service were calculated for two-lane rural collector segments based upon methodology in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. An overview of the results is presented in the Needs Assessment chapter, and a detailed explanation of the methodology is in Appendix D. Performance of the urban system is addressed in individual City TSPs. Lane Code 15.696 provides peak hour performance standards, and Lane Code 15.697 provides traffic impact analysis requirements. Traffic impact analyses, when required for proposed plan amendments, zone changes, or land developments, must demonstrate that the maximum volume to capacity ratios specified in Lane Code 15.696 will not be exceeded. Level of service calculations may also be useful in completing the analysis, and may be required by the County. The minimum peak hour level of service standard for Lane County is "LOS D." Where level of service analysis is required, both the v/c ratio standard and LOS D must be achieved or maintained. Achieving or maintaining the v/c standard means the v/c ratio is numerically equal to or less than the v/c ratio in the table in Lane Code (see below). Achieving or maintaining LOS D means the level of service is "D" or better, i.e. "A","B","C", or "D". Failure to meet the standard, or "exceedence" of the standard means that the predicted level of service is "E" or "F". The v/c ratio standards shown below are taken from Lane Code 15.696 and are provided for informational purposes only.

Table 6: Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios for Peak Hour Operating Conditions on Lane County Roads Roadway Category Location/Speed Limits

Inside Urban Growth Boundary Outside Urban Growth Boundary

Eugene-Springfield Metro Area

Outside Eugene-Springfield Metro area where speed

limit <45 mph

Outside Eugene-Springfield Metro area where speed

>45 mph

Within Unincorporated Communities

Outside Unincorporated Communities

Freeways and Expressways 0.80 N/a N/a n/a n/a

Other County Roads 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.80 0.70 As mentioned above, other analytical methods are sometimes appropriate as part of a traffic impact analysis (TIA). For example, in analyzing urban arterial or collector streets where congestion is more likely to occur, “delay-based” or “queue length" analysis methods may be appropriate. The standards allow for alternative approaches to be used for County facilities, as long as they are approved in advance by Lane County.

30

While analysis of roadway performance assists in identifying roadway system deficiencies, it does not determine what actions should be taken to address the deficiencies. Examples of actions that might improve performance include the following: a. Reconfigure roadway and side-street accesses to minimize traffic conflicts at intersections; b. Limit parking near signalized intersections to increase intersection capacity; c. Coordinate and operate traffic signals to improve traffic progression; d. Relocate driveways and improve local road connections to direct traffic away from overburdened

intersections and intersections where side-street capacity is limited in order to optimize traffic progression on the County Road;

e. Improve turning-radii at intersections that are heavily used by trucks to avoid lane blockages; f. Install raised medians to reduce traffic conflicts; g. Improve accesses so that traffic can enter or exit the roadway with minimal disruptions of flow; h. Implement other transportation demand management or transportation system management measures to use

existing capacity of the roadway more efficiently. Design Standards New road design standards are being adopted to implement the TSP and to update County Road standards in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. The new standards, found in Lane Code Chapter 15.700, will guide the design of County Road improvement projects, as well as road improvements constructed to serve private development. The standards apply to all County-maintained roads, all other public roads that are not Federal, State, or City roads/streets, and private roads. The exception is that City standards may apply to County Roads classified as local roads within urban growth boundaries, such as for subdivisions that will later be annexed. The new Lane County standards are derived from the following publications: Publications of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): • the 2001 Fourth Edition – A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; • Roadside Design Guide; and • 2001 Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400) Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) documents: • The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995) • The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan • The 1998 Highway Design Manual The Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan (November 1999) was also used in developing the design standards. The following documents will primarily continue to guide engineering decisions for County Roads in the absence of specific design policies and standards: • A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Road Design Guide, and the Geometric Design of

Very Low Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400) published by AASHTO will continue to be the guide for design elements that are not specified in adopted County standards.

• Decisions about traffic control devices, including traffic signals, pavement markings, signing, and crosswalk marking, will be guided by the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

• The Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction provides construction specifications standard for Lane County. Oregon Standard Drawings provides standard drawings to accompany the specifications. These publications were jointly developed and adopted by ODOT and the American Public Works Association (APWA), Oregon Chapter.

31

• AASHTO’s Guide for Design of Pavement Structures provide Lane County’s standards and procedures for pavement structure analysis and pavement structure design.

The edition and publication year of all documents is cited in Lane Manual Chapter 15.450. The treatment of roundabouts deserves discussion in this section. Several of the documents above discuss the design and marking of roundabouts. Roundabouts are one possible way to design intersections and control traffic movements at intersections. The construction and use of roundabouts as an intersection control is a relatively new strategy in Oregon and Lane County. There are a few locations where roundabouts are currently in use. Lane County will consider their use on a case-by-case basis where appropriate. If a decision is made to construct a roundabout, it will be designed in accordance with the best current information available regarding the design and application of roundabout concepts. The Federal Highway Administration currently provides guidance in Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (FHWA-RD-00-067). Roundabouts, when used, will be signed and marked in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The design standards are organized by functional classification, and then according to urban or rural road locations. Urban roads serving denser populations and land uses incorporate provisions for multiple transportation modes, including sidewalks and marked bike lanes. Curbs and gutters are required to handle relatively larger quantities of storm drainage, and to provide space for sidewalk construction and landscaping. Rural roads with relatively low average daily traffic counts (ADTs) are less likely to serve as commuting routes for walkers and bicyclists, but recreational bicycling is an increasingly popular use of these roads. On these roads the design standards accommodate biking and walking via striped and paved shoulder areas or shared roadways. Ditches adjacent to rural roads provide for drainage and are required to be included in the road right-of-way area. The County’s topography ranges from level to mountainous, and the population varies from an assortment of urban densities in small cities and the Eugene-Springfield area, to relatively sparse settlements in outlying, rural communities. It is typical to find a number of combinations of terrain and ADT on County Roads, and the design standards attempt to address these variations. For example, road width standards on mountainous roads are narrower than those on level terrain because the amount of traffic served is usually less and the costs and environmental impacts of construction are typically higher in these areas. There are large variations in traffic volume on the County Road system. The design standards take this into account by specifying wider shoulders on higher volume roads while low volume roads have lower minimum width requirements. ADT variations are taken into account in width standards for rural collectors and arterials, as well as urban and rural local roads. While ADT counts provide information about the amount of traffic on a road segment, they do not indicate the type of traffic. Some roads receive a large amount of heavy truck traffic, which can hasten the breakdown of the road structure. Pavement structure requirements must therefore consider truck traffic as a percentage of total ADT, as well as soil types. Minimum pavement structure standards are designed to take these factors into consideration to preserve the long-term structural integrity of County Roadways. Finally, unique circumstances may arise making it difficult or impossible to meet a given design requirement. As such, Design Standard provisions include procedures to request approval to deviate from the standards. It is important to note that the review of requests for deviations to the standards does not apply to land use decisions as defined in Lane Code chapter 14.015 or ORS 197.015. Goals And Policies: Roads Goal 1: Maintain the safety, physical integrity and function of the County Road network through the

routine maintenance program, the Capital Improvement Program, and the consistent application of road design standards.

32

Policy 1-a: Road operations, maintenance, repair, and preservation activities shall be a priority of the

Public Works Operations budget and shall be routinely carried out to protect the public investment in, and to ensure adequate functioning of the County Road network.

Policy 1-b: Continue to implement the Capital Improvement Program including yearly adoption to

address changing conditions, modified project schedules, the addition of new projects, and project completion.

Policy 1-c: Safety shall be the first priority in making decisions for the Capital Improvement Program

and for roadway operations, maintenance, and repair. Policy 1-d: The requirements of Lane Code 15 shall be consistently applied to all public and private road

improvement projects. In the absence of a County-adopted standard for a particular design element, the edition specified in Lane Manual 15.450 [**]of the following primary documents shall be the basis for road design, construction, signing and marking decisions: (i) The following documents, published by the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): (a) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; (b) Roadside Design Guide; (c) Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400); and (d) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.

(ii) The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration.

(iii) The following additional documents published by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the American Public Works Association (APWA), Oregon Chapter: (a) Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction (ODOT & APWA); (b) Oregon Standard Drawings (ODOT & APWA); (c) ODOT Highway Design Manual; (d) ODOT Hydraulics Manual; (e) ODOT Hydraulics Manual, Volume 2 (Erosion and Sediment Control); (f) Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (ODOT, 1995); and (g) 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (ODOT).

(iv) The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 published by the Transportation Research Board. (v) The Trip Generation, 7th Edition manual published by the Institute of Traffic

Engineers. Policy 1-e: Road improvement projects shall consider and, as financially and legally feasible, integrate

improvements for alternative transportation modes such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus stop turnouts, consistent with adopted road design standards.

Policy 1-f: Maintain County arterial and collector roads sufficiently for the safe and efficient movement

of freight, consistent with applicable traffic impact analysis, design policies and standards and land use regulations.

Policy 1-g: Maintain and improve roads consistent with their functional classification. Reclassify roads

as appropriate to reflect function and use. Policy 1-h: City standards shall apply to County Roads functionally classified as local roads within urban

growth boundaries. In the absence of City standards, the County’s road design standards shall apply.

33

Goal 2: Promote a safe and efficient state highway system through the State Transportation Improvement Program and support of ODOT capital improvement projects.

Policy 2-a: Safe movement of vehicles on the state system and, where allowed, bicyclists and pedestrians

shall be a priority. Lane County supports development and implementation of ODOT projects that improve the safety, operation, and structural characteristics of the state highway and bridge system, provided they are consistent with the TSP and applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Policy 2-b: The County shall coordinate, as appropriate, with ODOT in:

• plan development; • managing the existing state system; and • designing and developing facility improvements on the state system in Lane County.

Policy 2-c: The County supports the preservation of the natural, historic, cultural, and recreational values

of federally designated Scenic Byway routes maintained by ODOT. Policy 2-d: ODOT safety, preservation and modernization projects on the state system shall be consistent

with Policies 2a-c above, and need not be identified in the Lane County TSP 20-year Project List.

Goal 3: Promote a safe and efficient road network through access management.

Policy 3-a: Access decisions will be made in a manner consistent with the functional classification of the roadway.

Policy 3-b: Access Management policies and spacing standards found herein and in Lane Code 15.130

shall apply to all new development, changes of use, and road and driveway approach locations within County Road rights-of-way. For state facilities, the Oregon Department of Transportation controls access pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules 734, Division 51.

Policy 3-c: Development within a County Road right-of-way, including but not limited to excavation,

clearing, grading, utility placement, culvert placement or replacement, other stormwater facilities, and construction or reconstruction of road or driveway approaches, is allowed only upon approval of a facility permit.

Policy 3-d: Properties adjacent to County Roads shall be granted reasonable access subject to access

management and other applicable policies and standards herein and in Lane Code. Where access is available from more than one road, access shall be taken from the road with the lower functional classification as defined in Lane Code 15.020(2), unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer or designee.

Policy 3-e: Decisions regarding placement, location, relocation, and spacing of traffic control devices,

including but not limited to traffic signals, turn lanes, and medians shall be based upon accepted engineering practices as provided for in the edition specified in Lane Manual 15.450 of the following documents: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the Oregon Standard Drawings published by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and American Public Works Association (APWA), and A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

Policy 3-f: New development shall accommodate on-site traffic circulation on the site and not by

circulating on and off the site through multiple access points using the public road system.

34

"Backing out" maneuvers should be avoided for new driveways on all urban arterials and rural major collectors.

Goal 4: Maintain acceptable road performance levels.

Policy 4-a: The performance standard on County-maintained roads shall be as represented in the following peak hour volume to capacity ratio (v/c) table from Lane Code 15.696. Given adequate funding for public road improvements and as a secondary priority to safety improvements, this standard should be maintained in making decisions about public road improvement projects or implementation of other programs and strategies that mitigate traffic.

Table 7: Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios for Peak Hour Operating Conditions on Lane County Roads

Roadway Category Location/Speed Limits Inside Urban Growth Boundary Outside Urban Growth Boundary

Eugene-Springfield Metro Area

Outside Eugene-Springfield Metro area where speed

limit <45 mph

Outside Eugene-Springfield Metro

area where speed > 45 mph

Within Unincorporated Communities

Outside Unincorporated Communities

Freeways and Expressways 0.80 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other County Roads 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.80 0.70

Policy 4-b: In analyzing arterial or collector streets, peak hour level of service analysis methods may be appropriate. Level of service “D”, using the analytical approaches in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual is the standard of performance to be achieved or maintained, and not exceeded. Not exceeding LOS “D” means achieving or maintaining LOS “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D”. When such analysis is required, both the v/c standard in Lane Code 15.696 and LOS D must be met. The standards and procedures to be used in a particular study shall be approved in advance by Lane County Public Works according to the procedures in the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines of the Public Works Engineering Division.

Policy 4-c: A traffic impact analysis shall be required as part of a complete land use application based

upon the requirements of Lane Code 15.697, for any of the following: (i) any development proposal that, if approved, will result in an increase in peak hour

traffic flow of 50 or more automobile trips outside an urban growth boundary, or 100 or more automobile trips inside an urban growth boundary. The increase in number of trips shall be calculated based upon the methodology in the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation manual for the year of publication specified in Lane Manual Chapter 15.450 and associated handbook and user’s guide;

(ii) development proposals that will affect County Roads where congestion or safety problems have been identified by previous traffic engineering analysis;

(iii) any plan amendment proposal, unless waived by the County Engineer as specified below;

(iv) proposed development that will generate or receive traffic by single or combination vehicles with gross weights greater than 26,000 pounds as part of their daily operations. “Daily operations” includes delivery to or from the site of materials or products manufactured, processed, or sold by the business on the site. “Daily operations” does not include routine services provided to the site by others, such as mail delivery, solid waste pickup, or bus service.

The County Engineer or designee may waive traffic impact analysis requirements specified above, when:

35

(i) Previous analysis has determined that the development proposal will not result in congestion, safety, or pavement structure impacts that exceed the standards of the agency that operates the affected transportation facilities; or

(ii) In the case of a plan amendment or zone change, the scale and size of the proposal is insignificant, eliminating the need for detailed traffic analysis of the performance of roadway facilities for the 20-year planning horizon. Whether the scale and size of a proposal may be considered insignificant may depend on the existing level of service on affected roadways. Generally, a waiver to Traffic Impact Analysis will be approved when: (a) the plan designation or zoning that results will be entirely a resource designation;

or (b) the plan designation or zoning that results will be entirely residential and the

allowed density is not likely to result in creation of more than 50 lots; and (c) there is adequate information for the County Engineer or designee to determine

that a transportation facility is not significantly affected as defined in Policy 20-d.

Policy 4-d: When a traffic impact analysis is required,

(i) it shall evaluate all affected County Road facilities where direct access is proposed, including proposed access points and nearby intersections.

(ii) it shall be prepared by an Oregon-certified engineer with expertise in traffic and road construction engineering.

(iii) it shall document compliance with the Road Design Standards in Lane Code 15.700-15.708.

(iv) it shall document compliance with the goals and policies of the applicable Transportation System Plan.

(v) the County Engineer may alter the study requirements based upon the anticipated impact of the proposal. For example, a queue length analysis (based upon 95% probability) may be required.

(vi) the traffic impact analysis requirements shall be coordinated with other affected jurisdictions and agencies, such as the Oregon Department of Transportation or a City.

(vii) traffic engineers preparing traffic impact analyses shall request approval of the scope of the analysis before proceeding with the analysis, as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines of the Public Works Engineering Division.

Policy 4-e: When a traffic impact analysis is required,

(i) for plan amendments, it shall demonstrate that the performance standard in Policy 4-b for the affected County Road will not be exceeded within 20 years from the date the analysis is completed as a result of approval of the plan amendment or zone change. If the performance standards are already exceeded at a location affected by the plan amendment, the standard shall be to avoid further degradation of conditions;

(ii) for other proposed land use development, it shall demonstrate that the performance standard in Lane Code 15.696 for the affected County Road will not be exceeded immediately and for the next five years.

(iii) if the analysis must include an evaluation of the impacts of heavy vehicles pursuant to Policy 4-c (iv), it shall be based upon the procedures for pavement structure analysis in Lane Code 15.707.

(iv) Traffic impact analyses, and mitigation for traffic impacts on transportation facilities shall comply with adopted plans and codes of the agency with jurisdiction for the affected facility.

(v) If the performance standard in Policy 4-b cannot be achieved or maintained as specified in (i) or (ii) above, the traffic impact analysis shall propose road dedications and improvements for capacity increases, implementation of demand management strategies, or other mitigation measures. The proposal shall include a description of

36

how and when the improvements or measures will be implemented. Any proposed road improvements shall be consistent with applicable state and local policies and standards. Examples of mitigation actions are in Chapter 4.1 in the Level of Service and System Performance subsection. Conditions may be assigned to ensure such improvements or measures will be implemented.

Any requirements by the County resulting from an approved traffic impact analysis shall be the responsibility of the applicant unless otherwise approved by the County.

Policy 4-f: The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, for the year of publication

specified in Lane Manual 15.450, is the standard of practice for traffic impact analyses. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) published by McTrans Center for Microcomputers in Transportation, or other approved software, may also be used. SIGCAP published by ODOT, or other ODOT-approved software is acceptable when analysis of both State and County facilities is required.

Policy 4-g: ODOT policies and mobility standards shall be applied to decisions affecting state highways

in Lane County. Applicable standards from City Transportation System Plans (TSPs) shall be applied to decisions about City streets.

Policy 4-h: Traffic impact analyses shall be based on proposed access points consistent with County

access management policies and standards specified herein and in Lane Code 15.130-15.139. Traffic impact analyses shall also consider the safe operation of affected driveways and public street intersections. Proposals requiring traffic impact analysis shall include a review of consistency with Access Management policies and standards as part of the approval of the scope of the analysis.

Policy 4-i: When analyzing signalized intersections, locations where signal warrants may be met, or

intersections with all-way stop control (AWSC), the primary objective is to maintain the performance of the overall intersection. The overall intersection v/c ratio must meet the applicable standard. If level of service analysis is required, the level of service standard must also be met. At unsignalized intersections and road approaches with two-way stop control (TWSC), the object is to achieve or maintain the v/c ratios specified in Policy 4-a for the approaches that are not stopped. Approaches at which traffic must stop, or otherwise yield the right of way, shall be operated to maintain safe operation of the intersection and all its approaches and shall not exceed a v/c ratio of 0.95 within urban growth boundaries and a v/c ratio of 0.80 outside of urban growth boundaries. If public side streets or private driveways are predicted to exceed the standards, mitigation measures shall be recommended. If side street or driveway performance is predicted to exceed standards in order to maintain flow on the major street, adequate space for vehicle queuing (based upon 95% probability) must be maintained on the side street or driveway. At the intersection of a County Road and a State highway, State highway standards must be maintained for the State highway.

Goal 5: Promote a safe, functional, and well-maintained bridge network in Lane County.

Policy 5-a: Conduct bridge inspections in compliance with Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation requirements.

Policy 5-b Maintain an inventory of all County structures including inspection records showing load

ratings, general condition, and sufficiency ratings. Policy 5-c: Consider the inclusion of bridges in the Capital Improvement Program if they are structurally

or functionally deficient based upon bridge general condition ratings, roadway width, bike/pedestrian passage, load capacity, safety, and operating conditions.

37

Policy 5-d: Conduct routine maintenance and repair to ensure bridge integrity over the duration of its

design life. Policy 5-e: Consider the needs of the trucking industry when maintaining, building, or reconstructing

bridges. Policy 5-f: Maintain and restore Lane County covered bridges for their historic, aesthetic and cultural

value as feasible, through budget allocations to the Capital Improvement Program or other funding sources.

38

4.2. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities are most important within urban areas, where destinations are closer together and bicycling and walking are practical commuting modes. However, also providing these facilities in rural areas encourages bicycling and walking, especially to local destinations within ¼-½ mile, and for recreation and fitness. This section describes the bicycle and pedestrian facilities within Lane County. Chapter 6.3, Needs Assessment Methodology and Results, describes how bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided for in road construction or reconstruction projects. Types of Bikeways There are four types of on-road bicycle facilities in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Lane County generally uses the first three types on the County roadway network: • Shared roadways - the travel lane is the same for motor vehicles and bicycles/pedestrians; • (Rural) Paved shoulders - a portion of each paved travel lane is delineated by the fog line; • Urban bicycle lanes are delineated by a thicker white line between the curb and the travel lane and typically

include stenciling on the pavement and/or signage; • Multi-Use Paths are separated off-street paths provided within road rights-of-way for a limited number of

selected projects. Types of Walkways There are three types of on-road walkway facilities in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan used by pedestrians and persons in wheelchairs: • Sidewalks are constructed along roadways in conjunction with a curb and/or planting strip; • Shoulders typically serve as pedestrian facilities along rural roadways; • Multi-use off-street paths are provided within road rights-of-way for a limited number of selected projects. Off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths also exist throughout Lane County. Information about Lane County’s efforts with regard to recreational path development is included below in this chapter. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities within Urban Growth Boundaries The road design standards to be adopted concurrently with the TSP were developed consistent with guidelines found in the 1995 Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes are routinely required on all new or reconstructed arterial and collector County Roads within urban growth boundaries. City comprehensive plans and development standards generally require sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Within urban growth boundaries, City standards apply to local roads, and in the absence of City standards, County standards for urban local roads apply. New urban local roads are required to include sidewalks. Sidewalks are included in reconstruction plans for existing urban local roads if there were already sidewalks along the road, or if there is a demonstrated need to add sidewalks. In these instances, the sidewalks shall be constructed at the expense of the abutting property owners. County standards for urban local roads allow shared roadways for bicycle use. Bicycle and pedestrian facility needs on County Roads inside urban growth boundaries are incorporated into the Transportation System Plans for the corresponding cities within Lane County. The Project List in Chapter 6.4 also includes these proposed bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. Rural Lane County Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities In rural areas, bicycle and pedestrian travel is more likely to be recreation or fitness-oriented, due to the distance between origins and destinations. The combination of an extensive rural roadway system and relatively low traffic volumes encourages recreational cycling in Lane County. The County includes paved shoulders on new or reconstructed rural arterial and collector roads to accommodate non-motorized travel.

39

Generally, sidewalks are not provided along rural County Roads although they may be provided where there is a demonstrated need in unincorporated communities and in other areas of concentrated commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional development. This will be determined on a case by case basis. Marked crosswalks are provided on County Roads where there are signalized intersections and at school crossings. Lane County’s rural bikeway and pedestrian system includes bike lanes, paved shoulders, and shared roadways. Due to constitutional limitations on road funds, Lane County does not provide off-street multi-use paths in rural areas. All streets are part of the bicycle network unless bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a road or bridge. Some County Roads have paved shoulders that bicyclists can use. However, most rural collector roadways have no paved shoulders and are therefore shared roadways. Appendix C is a map showing City, County, and State roads in the County‘s bicycle network. The map includes information about topography, road conditions, bicycle facilities, traffic levels, and recreational travel destinations and loops. The County Roads Inventory, Appendix C, indicates whether roads include shoulder area for bicycle and pedestrian use. The Needs Assessment in Chapter 6.3 indicates that many arterials and collectors do not meet minimum width standards. For newly constructed or reconstructed County rural arterial and collectors, the following lane widths for motorized travel, and shoulder widths to serve non-motorized needs, are required:

Table 8: Required Lane and Shoulder Width on Lane County Rural Arterial and Collector Roads Terrain Lane Width (2) Shoulder (2) Total Pavement Width

<250 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Level 11 2 26 Rolling 11 0 22 Mountainous 10 0 20

250-400 ADT Level 11 4 30 Rolling 11 2 26 Mountainous 11 0 22

400-1500 ADT Level 11 6 34 Rolling 11 4 30 Mountainous 11 2 26

1500-10,000 ADT Level 12 6 36 Rolling 11 6 34 Mountainous 11 4 30

>10,000 ADT Level 12 8 40 Rolling 12 6 36 Mountainous 12 4 32

The Needs Assessment in Chapter 6.3 describes how bicycle and pedestrian needs were evaluated for developed areas outside of urban growth boundaries. The Project List in Chapter 6.4 includes proposed bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements for County Roads. Lane County also participates in off-road trail development, primarily for recreational users, through the County Parks Division. In the late 1990’s, Lane County cooperated with several entities under the leadership of the Bureau of Land Management in the development of a segment of the Row River trail, a walking, bicycling, and equestrian trail, on an abandoned railroad bed. Lane County assisted in providing access to the trail from the County Road system at several locations and to a public park that was under County management at that time. The County also improved the Dorena Covered Bridge and made it into a County rest area as a nearby asset of the trail. Another prominent area where the County promotes trail development and use is at Mount Pisgah/Buford Park. Mt Pisgah has over 16 miles of hiking/equestrian trails. It is also part of the Eugene to Pacific Crest Trail (EPCT) system which runs from Alton Baker Park to the Willamette National Forest near Oakridge. The County Parks Division has been working with the City of Eugene to develop a plan and future funding to connect the EPCT to Eugene's Ridgeline Trail and to the City’s bike path that extends west of town to the County Park system on Fern Ridge Reservoir.

40

Goals And Policies: Bicycle And Pedestrian Facilities Goal 6: Provide safe and convenient opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel throughout Lane

County.

Policy 6-a: Marked bicycle lanes are required on urban arterial and collector streets when those streets are newly constructed, are reconstructed to urban standards, or are widened to provide additional vehicular capacity.

Policy 6-b: Sidewalks or paved pathways accompanying public streets and roads are necessary wherever

significant conflicts with motor vehicle traffic jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of pedestrians and bicyclists. (i) Generally, sidewalks are not provided along rural County Roads (outside of urban

growth boundaries) although they may be provided where there is a demonstrated need in unincorporated communities and in other areas of concentrated commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional development. This will be determined on a case by case basis.

(ii) County arterial and collector roads within urban growth boundaries shall include sidewalks and the cost shall be assessed to the abutting property owners, unless the assessment is waived by the Board of County Commissioners.

(iii) Sidewalks on new or reconstructed County Roads functionally classified as local roads within urban growth boundaries shall be required as provided for in City development standards. In the absence of City standards, sidewalks are required for new roads or reconstructed roads with existing sidewalks. Sidewalks shall also be required for reconstructed urban local roads without existing sidewalks, except if the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use, or if sparsity of population, other available ways or other factors indicate an absence of any need for sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be constructed at the expense of the developer or adjacent property owners.

(iv) Roads which do not have curbs and gutters and which are not scheduled to be rebuilt, but which do have a significant need for sidewalks, may be provided with temporary asphalt walkways.

Policy 6-c: Public Works staff should work with school district personnel to establish school route plans.

Based on these plans, Lane County will install appropriate traffic control devices, such as signs, crosswalks or other markings, or other devices as approved by the Traffic Engineer.

Policy 6-d: New development subject to Site Review and Land Division requirements shall provide

adequately for safe bicycle and pedestrian on-site circulation and off-site transportation connections. Development shall provide for safe and convenient on-site circulation with respect to the location and dimensions of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and walkways in relation to each other and to buildings and other facilities. Consideration shall be given to the need for lighting, sidewalks, widening and improving abutting streets, bus stop access, and bicycle lane and pedestrian path connections, consistent with adopted access management, road and driveway spacing standards, road design standards, and other requirements in Lane Code 15.

Policy 6-e: All new development within urban growth boundaries, when adjacent to County-maintained

road rights-of-way, shall include bicycle and pedestrian facilities as specified in the Road Design Standards for Urban Roads in Lane Code 15.

Policy 6-f: The County generally will support State projects that include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

41

Goal 7: Promote logical and efficient bicycle and pedestrian connections within the Lane County transportation system and between the County’s and other jurisdictions’ transportation systems.

Policy 7-a: In planning and implementing transportation system improvements, Lane County will

coordinate with other affected jurisdictions to maximize bicycle and pedestrian route connectivity.

Policy 7-b: The County will look for opportunities to partner with ODOT and City agencies on bicycle

and pedestrian facilities when roads of different jurisdictions intersect, in order to provide adequately for bicycle and pedestrian travel to local destinations.

Goal 8: Promote connectivity between non-motorized and other transportation modes.

Policy 8-a: In the design and construction of transportation facilities, barriers to foot and bicycle travel should be avoided.

Goal 9: Encourage and support the development of recreational bicycling and hiking facilities,

recognizing these activities as important to community livability and to the tourism sector of the local and state economy.

Policy 9-a: Road maintenance decisions will strive to balance the need for controlling long term

pavement maintenance costs with consideration for providing improved road surfaces for cycling.

Policy 9-b: Road improvement projects identified on the TSP Project List shall incorporate shoulders and

sidewalks adequate for pedestrian use, consistent with other TSP policies and with road design standards to be adopted concurrently with the TSP.

Policy 9-c: Within statutory road fund limitations, the County will consider opportunities to participate in

off-road bicycle trail and footpath development and promotion, when there is adequate demand and as economically feasible.

Policy 9-d: On a case-by-case basis, and within statutory road fund limitations, the County will consider

the feasibility of establishing or maintaining access ways, paths, or trails prior to the vacation of any public easement or right-of-way.

42

4.3. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Fixed Route Rural Transit Service (Lane Transit District) Lane Transit District (LTD) was formed in 1970 and was authorized by the Oregon Legislative Assembly to serve all of Lane County. As of this publication, LTD operates 55 bus routes throughout the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area as well as providing rural service to and from the Eugene-Springfield area for the communities of McKenzie Bridge, Veneta, Junction City, Coburg, Cottage Grove and Lowell. Rural routes typically have a morning, midday and early evening run. All buses have bicycle racks and are wheelchair accessible. LTD currently transports approximately 15,000 bicycles monthly. Rural LTD routes all operate out of the downtown Eugene station, primarily on state highways and major collector and arterial roads. Following is general route information, subject to change by LTD.

91 - McKenzie Bridge travels along Highway 126 east, with four buses in each direction on weekdays and two buses on Saturdays and Sundays. 92 - Lowell via Dexter, Pleasant Hill and Lane Community College travels along Highway 58, with four buses from Eugene to Lowell and five buses returning, on weekdays only. 93 - Veneta operates on Highway 126, Territorial Road/Highway, Clear Lake Road, Fir Butte Road, Royal Avenue, and Green Hill Road with six buses in each direction on weekdays and two buses on Saturdays. 95 - Junction City travels generally on River Road and Highway 99, with six buses on weekdays in each direction and two buses on Saturdays. 95x - Junction City Express travels generally on Highway 99 with 4 buses in each direction on weekdays. 96 - Coburg travels generally along Coburg Road between Eugene and Coburg, including 8 stops, with six buses on weekdays. 96x - Coburg Express travels along I-105 and I-5 stopping only in Eugene and at Monaco Coach, with one bus in each direction. 98 - Cottage Grove travels generally on I-5 and also serves Creswell, with 7 weekday buses, 3 buses on Saturday, and 2 buses on Sunday. Diamond Express began in March 2003 and offers weekday commuter van service between the City of Oakridge and downtown Eugene. It is operated by Special Mobility Services with the assistance of a one-year grant from the ODOT intercity grant program.

LTD staff indicate that the demand for rural transit is sufficient to warrant an increase in service. By increasing ridership on the bus system, there is an opportunity to reduce vehicle miles traveled. It is in the County's interest to support and encourage the expansion of public transit and other alternative modes as a way to reduce vehicle miles traveled and thus demand on the road system. However, financial and legal obstacles constrain local efforts to increase rural fixed-route transit service levels. LTD operations are primarily funded by payroll taxes collected from the service area, and state law limits this rate to 0.06%. Furthermore,

43

payroll taxes are particularly sensitive to economic cycles. As a result, LTD is now experiencing budgetary shortfalls, and is implementing for a system-wide service reduction in late 2002. Although it is anticipated that there will be no reduction in rural route services, neither will there be an increase in the near term. Nor do rider fees cover all costs. Rural bus service is also dependent on the limited ability of businesses in outlying service areas to pay special tax assessments. The cities of Oakridge and Florence have chosen not to be annexed into the LTD service district and pay no special tax assessments. The lack of funds from these communities inhibits LTD’s ability to provide services there. The Oregon Constitution also limits the use of County, City, and ODOT highway user fees to road-related purposes. Transit operations, facilities, or capital improvements are not legal uses of these funds. Federal transportation and transit resources are generally available for capital improvements or fleet purchases, but not for transit operations. County or state general fund resources could be allocated to transit services, but other demands on the County’s limited budget mean that the County looks to LTD to finance public transit operations. Commuter Solutions Program Coordinating local government agencies to promote alternatives to the single occupant vehicle is the responsibility of the staff of the Commuter Solutions Program housed at Lane Transit District’s offices. With funding assistance from ODOT, Commuter Solutions is the regional transportation demand management (TDM) program. Local agencies contribute staff time and the local grant match for the program’s operating budget (approximately $200,000 for 2002). The County is a financial partner in the program and serves on its TDM Advisory Committee. Alternative transportation educational programs, vanpooling, carpooling, and group discount transit passes are a few examples of the many Commuter Solutions services and programs available within the region. In the year 2000, Commuter Solutions introduced a vanpool between Eugene and Corvallis. That same year, Commuter Solutions coordinated with Oregon Cascades West Council of Governments and Mid-Valley Rideshare (Salem) to begin operation of Eugene-Salem and Eugene-Corvallis vanpools. The latest vanpool to begin operation is from Cottage Grove/Creswell to Eugene. Commuter Solutions staff is now embarking upon a vanpool program to service Oakridge and Highway 58 area residences and employees. The Commuter Solutions program strategic goals for 2002-2005 are: 1. Increase participation in alternative modes 2. Consider the use of parking management strategies in selected areas 3. Implement TDM strategies at key congested locations 4. Create TMD Infrastructure Supported by Regional Jurisdictions Bus Rapid Transit Perhaps the most anticipated and innovative new LTD program is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which uses a combination of bus lanes, guideways, and traffic priority measures to provide high frequency, fast bus service that emulates light rail. In 1998, Congress provided $8.8 million for development of BRT, and it emerged as the preferred strategy for reducing vehicle miles traveled as part of the Eugene-Springfield Regional Transportation Plan (TransPlan) update. Special Transportation Needs LTD is the governing body for the receipt of State Special Transportation Funds for the Elderly and Disabled (STF). Through the Special Transportation Program LTD contracts with providers of curb-to-curb and door-to-door transportation services for people who are unable to use regular fixed-route buses due to a disability or because they reside in areas of Lane County without public transportation. In addition to funded programs, transportation to and from medical facilities using volunteer drivers is provided throughout Lane County with collaboration between LTD, Senior & Disabled Services Outreach Program (a division of the Lane Council of Governments), Lane Community College’s Senior Companion Program, and volunteer citizens.

44

The following transportation services are available for elderly, disabled, and other residents with specialized transportation needs in the more populated areas of Lane County: • RideSource is a curb-to-curb transit service for eligible riders traveling within Eugene-Springfield, and the

River Road area. Special Mobility Services (SMS) is a private non-profit agency that operates RideSource and associated programs through a contract with Lane Transit District. RideSource complies with federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

• The RideSource Shopper is a once a week shopping service for elderly and disabled residents of Eugene,

Springfield and Coburg that offers assistance with grocery and other purchases. • Special Mobility Services also administers the RideSource Escort program using their own volunteers and

those associated with other cooperating agencies. Volunteers use their own vehicles and receive a mileage reimbursement to transport elderly and disabled residents to and from medical appointments. Areas served include Eugene, Springfield, the River Road area, Veneta, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Junction City and Florence. Whenever possible residents in other rural areas of the County are served.

• South Lane Wheels is a private non-profit organization providing dial-a-ride service to residents of Cottage

Grove, Creswell, and nearby rural communities, and transporting the elderly and people with disabilities to and from medical appointments in Eugene-Springfield. Local dial-a-ride service is open to the general public.

• The City of Oakridge contracts with LTD to run a two van service for elderly and disabled residents for local

travel needs, and for medical and shopping services in the Eugene-Springfield area. • The Rhody Express operated by River Cities Taxi is a local shuttle serving Florence. It has evolved from a

special transportation needs service to serving the City’s general population. It runs Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. using a deviated route system. This is a flexible system that allows riders who have difficulty getting to bus stops to call and request to be picked up at home. Deviations are limited to three blocks within the defined service area. Rhody Express uses set time points and flag stops to create a fixed-route environment with curb-to-curb flexibility, and also meets ADA accessibility requirements.

• Friends of Florence Van is operated by volunteers who transport cancer patients between Florence and the

Eugene Cancer Center Monday through Friday. • Medicaid offers transportation services to qualifying persons requiring medical services. • The Oregon Health Plan coordinates with service providers to fund medical-related transportation. • Senior and Disabled Services, a division of Lane Council of Governments, coordinates volunteer medical

rides. • Veteran’s Transportation assists veterans in the Florence area. Intercity And Interstate Bus Transportation Greyhound Line and Porter Enterprises coordinate operations to provide intercity and interstate bus service from Eugene between bus terminals, to the Amtrak station in Eugene, and to points throughout the state. Greyhound Line travels generally north and south, and Porter operates out of Coos Bay, traveling up the coast through Florence, into Eugene, and to points east.

45

Passenger And High Speed Rail Transportation The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) provides intercity and interstate rail passenger service two to four times a day to points north and south. Since 1976, the U.S. Congress has required planning and provided funding for rail transportation through passage and reauthorization of a series of legislative acts. Most recently, in 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which greatly expanded the nation’s focus on intermodal transportation and movement of people and goods. It provided federal funding for multimodal transportation, including passenger rail service and facility improvements, from both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and states. In 1997, Congress passed a more flexible funding authorization package called the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Built upon the foundation of ISTEA, TEA-21 contained a number of changes that permitted increased opportunities for states to obtain funds for rail freight projects and intercity passenger service. Road and air travel congestion, air pollution, and increased availability of federal funding have contributed to a revived interest in passenger rail travel. In Oregon and elsewhere, passenger rail transportation’s recent emphasis is on high-speed rail. Although the cost of developing a high-speed rail system is substantial, interest nationwide at all levels of government to invest in and support high-speed rail continues to remain strong. While funding continues to be an issue, past efforts have laid solid ground for continued high-speed rail development. There are 12 high-speed rail corridors nationally authorized under the High-Speed Rail Investment Act. The Pacific Northwest Corridor (Interstate 5 from Eugene to Vancouver, B.C.) was federally designated as a high priority corridor in 1998. High Priority Corridor status makes Oregon eligible to receive additional federal funds for high-speed rail projects along I-5. In 1999, rail ridership along the Pacific Northwest corridor between Eugene and Vancouver, B.C. hit an all-time high of 570,000, a three percent increase over 1998. The increase is attributed in part to the introduction of the European-style Cascades Talgo train equipment that was custom-built for this region. That same year, the Oregon Legislature approved funding for a second daily train between Eugene and Portland (and on to Seattle). Cascades trains are designed for high-speed rail service; however, track and safety systems currently limit the trains to a top speed of 79 miles per hour. Incremental improvements to these systems, already underway, will allow speeds of 110 mph by the year 2018. Amtrak’s Eugene station is the southern terminus of the Pacific high-speed rail corridor. Major renovation plans for the train station are underway to expand its function to accommodate multi-modal transportation. In 1998, after passage of TEA-21, Congress contributed $2 million to help initiate this effort. Information about rail freight transportation systems is provided in the next chapter on Rail, Air, Water, and Pipelines. Goals And Policies: Public Transportation Goal 10: Support and encourage improved public transportation services and alternatives to single

occupancy vehicle travel between the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area and outlying communities.

Policy 10-a: Continue to assist in coordinating public transportation and multi-modal transportation

initiatives by providing technical support and otherwise participating in technical advisory committees, task forces and working groups, such as the regional Commuter Solutions (Transportation Demand Management) program.

46

Policy 10-b: County Road construction and reconstruction projects shall include consultation with LTD and shall, as feasible, accommodate transit stops, bus pullouts and shelters along existing or planned bus routes as permitted under statutory requirements for road fund expenditures. Unless otherwise authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, transit stop amenities with the exception of bus pullouts will typically be funded by LTD or other non-County sources.

Policy 10-c: The County will support efforts to develop public transit facilities such as park-n-ride lots and

shelters in rural areas when they are consistent with land use, zoning, and other applicable regulations.

Policy 10-d: The County will investigate the possibility of providing free or discounted bus transportation

services for County employees as part of LTD’s Group Pass Program. Goal 11: Support efforts to maintain rail transportation and to promote high speed rail development.

Policy 11-a: As feasible, Lane County will participate in efforts to plan, develop, and maintain rail-related infrastructure improvements for high-speed and other passenger rail service.

Policy 11-b: Lane County will coordinate with and support State efforts to comply with Federal and State

rail transportation requirements by consulting adopted versions of the Oregon Transportation Plan and Rail Plan when making transportation or land use decisions involving rail facilities.

Goal 12: Support initiatives to develop improved transportation services for County citizens with special

needs.

Policy 12-a: As feasible and as opportunities arise, Lane County will support public and private efforts to meet special transportation service needs for County residents, giving priority to rural residents.

47

4.4. RAIL, AIR, WATER, AND PIPELINES Rail Transportation Railways in Lane County are part of a State and Federal network, providing both freight and passenger services. Passenger rail transportation is discussed in the previous chapter on Public Transportation. Freight Rail Transportation There are 2,387 miles of railroad in Oregon. Slightly more than half are owned and operated by two major rail systems which pass through Lane County: the Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. Short line or small railroads operate the remainder. Oregon’s freight rail traffic totaled 63.5 million tons, handled to, from, within, and through the state in 1999. This figure represented an almost 18 percent increase over freight rail tonnage handled in 1992, the data year used for the 1994 Oregon Freight Rail Plan. Major commodities handled by the railroad in Oregon include lumber and forest products, automobiles and trucks, grain, fruits and manufactured products. The general characteristics of Oregon freight rail tonnage are similar to the characteristics of freight rail tonnage in Washington, i.e., more tons terminate in the state than originate here, and through traffic accounts for a major share of total tons. (Executive Summary, Draft 2001 Oregon Rail Plan). Union Pacific Railroad follows the historic route of the Oregon Trail into the state over the Blue Mountains in northeast Oregon, along the south bank of the Columbia River to Portland, before traveling south into Eugene. The track continues southeast to Chemult, and then south to California. While Eugene is considered an important terminal on the route, in 1999, the railroad closed its Eugene yard and opened a new switchyard just north of Sacramento. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway enters Oregon along the north-south I-5 corridor in Western Oregon, and also from the northeast, sharing track with Union Pacific along the south banks of the Columbia River. BNSF operates a major Portland terminal. The main branch line terminates in Eugene, where it connects to the Central Oregon and Pacific Siskiyou short line. The line between Eugene and Portland was originally built by the Oregon Electric Railroad to provide passenger service between Eugene and Portland. Today it is used exclusively for freight. Central Oregon and Pacific operates two short lines out of Eugene. The Siskiyou Line travels south to Black Butte, near Weed, California and the Coos Bay Line travels west from Eugene to Mapleton, then on to Coquille. Both of these lines are former Southern Pacific branches which were acquired in 1994 by the previous parent company, Railtex. CORP has been an independent operator since 1995. Goals And Policies: Rail Transportation Goal 13: Promote railway and highway safety at and near road and railway intersections.

Policy 13-a: Lane County’s Engineering Division shall notify railroad companies of all road improvement projects within 500 feet of railways.

Policy 13-b: Road improvement projects will give consideration to upgrading existing railroad crossings

and protective devices, grade-separated crossings, elimination of existing railroad crossings, and to the extent possible, will minimize new railroad crossings.

48

Air Transportation The Eugene Airport is the major regional commercial airport for the County. There are also airports in Florence, Oakridge, Cottage Grove, Creswell, and McKenzie Bridge that generally serve smaller, private aircraft. Three of these are owned and operated by the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA), in Cottage Grove, McKenzie Bridge, and Oakridge. The Oregon Aviation Plan addresses public use airports. It establishes five categories of airports based upon their functional roles. Lane County includes one Category 1 airport (Eugene), three Category 4 airports, and three Category 5 airports. The Siltcoos Lake Seaplane Base is unrated due to its infrequent use. Category 1 airports accommodate scheduled major/national or regional/commuter commercial air carrier service. Category 4 airports accommodate general aviation users and local business activities. Category 5 airports accommodate limited general aviation use in smaller communities and remote areas, and function for emergency and recreational use. Following are descriptions of public airports throughout the County. Number of annual operations (take off or landing) are based upon records kept by the State Department of Aviation and Federal Aviation Administration. Not listed in this section are the numerous private airports, such as those serving hospitals and other businesses. Eugene Airport Eugene Airport is owned and operated by the City of Eugene, and is a Category 1 airport. Located approximately 10 miles northwest of Eugene's central business district, it is situated on approximately 2,500 acres of land. Ground access to the Airport is provided via Airport Road off of State Highway 99. Originally named Mahlon Sweet Field after a local businessman who promoted its establishment, the Eugene Airport was dedicated in 1943. The area's general aviation activity was transferred to Mahlon Sweet Field upon the closure of the Eugene Air Park in 1956. The Eugene Airport is the fifth-largest airport in the Pacific Northwest, and the second busiest airport in the state. It is classified as a primary commercial service small hub airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. It supports commercial service and general aviation activity. There are approximately 95,902 annual operations at this airport. United, United Express, Horizon Air, and America West Express are the airlines that provide scheduled commercial service at this airport, although service is subject to change. In addition, two full-service fixed base operators (FBOs) and one limited service FBO operate at Eugene Airport, providing services such as repairs, fueling, maintenance, charter flights, agricultural spraying, aircraft sales and rentals, and flight instruction. The airfield consists of two runways. Creswell Airport - Hobby Field The City of Creswell municipal airport, Hobby Field, is a Category 4 facility owned by the City and leased to a private operator. The airport is located 1 mile northeast of Creswell, between Interstate 5 and Dale Kuni Road. It is accessed from Melton Road off of Cloverdale Road. The 28-acre site includes a paved runway, a parallel taxiway, approximately 45 hangars and tie down spaces. Services include charter flights, flight instruction, two skydiving schools, aircraft rental, and fueling. There are approximately 38,500 annual operations at this airport. Cottage Grove Airport Cottage Grove Airport, owned by the State Aeronautics Division, is 1 mile east of the City of Cottage Grove. It is a Category 4 airport. There are approximately 16,685 annual operations at this airport. Services provided by a private operator include fueling, aircraft maintenance, pilot lounge, a restaurant, and camping. In 1999, the State completed several runway safety improvements, including a new taxiway, expanding the tie-down apron, and installing lights and approach indicators. The Oregon Aviation Historical Society has operated the Oregon Aviation History Center on property leased at the airport since early 2000.

49

Florence Municipal Airport The Florence Municipal Airport, rated as Category 4 by the ODA, is located approximately 1 mile north of Florence, within the Florence Urban Growth Boundary. Fueling, aircraft rental, flight instruction, and tie-down facilities services are available. There are approximately 5,500 annual operations at this airport. Lake Woahink Seaplane Base This Category 5 aircraft facility is approximately 4 miles south of Florence, and has two, unmarked water runways. Tiedown facilities and flight instruction is available. There is a potential for 3,000 operations at this facility, although there was no longer a full-time operator at the facility as of this writing. Siltcoos Lake Seaplane Base This facility 6 miles south of Florence has two, unmarked water runways. There are approximately 100 operations per year from the facility. Tiedowns are available, and a private dock is nearby. The ODA has no Category rating for this seaplane base. Oakridge State Airport The Oakridge State Airport is approximately one mile west of Oakridge, on Airport Road north of Highway 58. There are approximately 1,700 operations at this Category 5 facility per year. The U.S. Forest Service uses the airport as a staging area for fire fighting helicopter operations during the fire season. McKenzie Bridge State Airport No aircraft are based at this small facility, which is essentially a take-off and landing area located 3 miles east of McKenzie Bridge on the south side of Highway 126, approximately 1 mile west of the Highway 242 intersection. There are two Forest Service helipads that are sometimes used during the fire season. The airport provides recreational access to the area, and serves as an emergency landing strip. Less than 1,000 operations occur here per year. This airport is one of nine State-owned “warning” airports. These airports do not meet normal dimensional standards and have conditions that require specific pilot knowledge. Pilots are advised to contact the ODA prior to use. Goals And Policies: Air Transportation Goal 14: Coordinate transportation system improvement decisions with airport facility needs.

Policy 14-a: Road improvements on major airport access routes shall be consistent with the Eugene Airport Master Plan and with other Airport Plans adopted by cities where airports are located.

Policy 14-b: Consistent with the 2000 Eugene Airport Master Plan, Lane County Public Works

Engineering will coordinate with the Eugene Airport Authority to improve ground access to the airport. As opportunities arise, transportation system projects will incorporate improvements to access routes to other public airports in the County.

Policy 14-c: Road improvement design decisions affecting access routes serving public airports in the

County will consider the needs of motor vehicles associated with existing and contemplated air freight and air passenger businesses serving the airports.

Policy 14-d: All County Road improvements near airports will be coordinated with federal, state, and local

agencies responsible for airport air space. Goal 15: Coordinate land use decisions with airport facility needs.

Policy 15-a: Lane County shall review all proposed airport expansion plans and provide comment as appropriate regarding land use compatibility, consistency with zoning, and impacts on the County’s transportation system.

50

Policy 15-b: Lane County shall review all proposed land use outside urban growth boundaries and in the

vicinity of an airport regarding compatibility with the airport. Airport airspace shall be protected from inappropriate development through the implementation of land use and zoning regulations.

Goal 16: Support multi-modal transportation services to and from the airport.

Policy 16-a: As possible, Lane County shall participate in planning and other efforts to improve public as well as private, multi-occupancy vehicle transportation services to and from the Eugene Airport.

Water Transportation: Port Of Siuslaw The Siuslaw River is a federally authorized navigable waterway for 16.5 miles from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean. Navigation maintenance is under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction. The river and Port are also served by the U.S. Coast Guard Station Siuslaw. The Port of Siuslaw is the oldest port on the Oregon coast. The overall project was originally authorized in 1890 with later modifications. As the only port serving Lane County and the Eugene/Springfield metro area, the Port is involved in a wide range of commercial enterprises and public services. Its principle functions are to facilitate commerce and create jobs. Port facilities include wharfage, commercial and recreation moorages, public boat ramps and docks, campground and parks, and commercial/industrial land and building leases. Facilities extend about 22 miles upstream to the unincorporated community of Mapleton. The mouth of the river is protected by two jetties, one on the north and one on the south side of the river. The shallow draft channel is suitable for ocean-going tugs and barges, and commercial fishing vessels. The principle economic drivers in the Port district are forest products, agriculture, tourism, fisheries and recreation. While the Port levies a property tax, revenues from enterprise activities account for over 75% of its operating budget. Industrial activities on the navigable waterway include private industry shipping terminals at river miles 6.5, 7.5, and 16. U.S. Highway 101 crosses the navigable waterway by drawbridge at river mile 4.5, and the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad crosses the water by swing bridge at river mile 8.2. Annual maintenance dredging is performed on the entrance bar with smaller amounts of dredging taking place on the upper channel at irregular intervals. In the recent past, maintenance dredging by the USACE has removed approximately 150,000 cubic yards of material annually from the main entrance channel at an average cost of about $600,000 but has not dredged the other sections of the river for almost 30 years. The USACE has recently been under pressure to recoup the cost of dredging and to consider cost effectiveness. As a result it is increasingly difficult for smaller ports to compete with larger ports for scarce dredging funds. While the Port District has recently completed several facility renovations, many waterfront structures that were completed during 1960-1980 are still in need of rehabilitation or replacement, including piers, wharves and docks in Old Town Florence. Other needed work includes stabilizing sections of the shoreline to prevent further erosion. The Port office, shops and warehouses are in need of replacement. Recent renovations include partial bulkhead restoration, construction of a boardwalk, rehabilitation of the commercial marina and remediation of an old lumber mill site for future commercial development. Industrial development on Port properties and other similarly zoned properties within the District boundaries remains dependent upon improving infrastructure. Water, sewer and electric utility service are adequate but telecommunications upgrade is needed if the Port is to expand its facilities. Current economic trends will

51

probably mean that the Port of Siuslaw will rely increasingly upon recreation and tourism revenues to provide internal financing for infrastructure and business development. Efforts to promote recreational use of the Port of Siuslaw include the development of the Siuslaw Estuary Water Trail. Plans are to designate over 24 miles of water trail on the Siuslaw River from Mapleton to Florence, including installation, construction, or development of signage, access points, maps, campsites, and other water trail related infrastructure for paddling enthusiasts. A multi-party planning effort for the water trail was launched in 2003 with participants from the Port of Siuslaw, Siuslaw Watershed Council, National Park Service, City of Florence, and Florence Chamber of Commerce, as well as interested business people and residents. Goals And Policies: Water Transportation Goal 17: Support Port of Siuslaw development efforts and recognize the Port as important to the state and

local economy.

Policy 17-a: Road improvement projects affecting facilities that support or are operated by the Port of Siuslaw shall be coordinated with the Port and with the Oregon Department of Transportation. Lane County will seek concurrence for all development in the Siuslaw River and adjacent to the navigable waterway.

Policy 17-b: Lane County shall review proposed Port of Siuslaw expansion plans when they involve lands

and/or roads in the County’s jurisdiction, and provide comment as appropriate regarding land use compatibility, consistency with zoning, and impacts on the County’s transportation system.

Policy 17-c: Lane County shall support Port of Siuslaw in its efforts to improve navigability of the river

and promotion of the local fishing industry, consistent with state and local land use and zoning laws.

Goal 18: Protect the long term ecological health of the Siuslaw River.

Policy 18-a: Development in and near the Siuslaw River in areas of County land use jurisdiction shall comply with the Lane County Coastal Resources Management Plan and with federal and state regulations.

Pipelines Two major pipelines pass through Lane County. Williams Company transports natural gas. Their Northwest transmission system extends from the Canadian border at Sumas, Washington and serves seven states, including a line running south through Lane County to Grants Pass. The Kinder Morgan Energy Partners Pacific Pipeline carries petroleum gas from Portland to Eugene. The pipeline is 8 inches in diameter and made of steel. It enters Lane County north of Junction City and terminates in Eugene at their Prairie Road railroad terminal. The following contact information is provided for coordinating road improvement projects: Williams Gas Pipeline West Kinder Morgan Eugene Terminal 295 Chipeta Way 1765 Prairie Rd. Salt Lake City, UT 84158 Eugene, OR 97402 801/583-8800 541/689-1545 24-hour gas control: 800/972-7733

52

Goals And Policies: Pipelines Goal 19: Protect pipelines as conveyances and for public safety.

Policy 19-a: Lane County shall coordinate with pipeline providers on matters of mutual concern, such as road maintenance activities and road improvement projects to protect public safety and maintain the viability of both modes of transportation.

Policy 19-b: Lane County shall review all proposed pipeline expansion plans and provide comment as

appropriate regarding land use compatibility, consistency with zoning, and impacts on the County’s transportation system.

53

CHAPTER 5: TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE The TPR mandates that the County’s Transportation System Plan describe how the County is implementing state land use Goal 12 to provide a network of facilities and services to meet overall transportation needs. Within that framework, one purpose of the TPR is to better integrate transportation system and land use planning. Areas outside of UGBs are generally treated as “rural” areas under state land use laws. The TPR does not allow new arterial roads in rural areas, unless an “exception” to applicable statewide land use goals is taken. In other words, new arterial roads in the County require an amendment to the Transportation System Plan, following the state-specified exception process. The grounds for an exception cited in OAR 660-012-0070 require an analysis that demonstrates why the need cannot be met with an alternative mode of transportation, traffic management measures, or improvements to existing transportation facilities. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that the proposed road improvement cannot be located within an area already committed to development. These requirements apply to both county and state roads. New local roads and collectors are permitted in developed and committed rural areas provided they are limited to two travel lanes and are otherwise limited to serving rural needs. The TPR also specifies which transportation activities in rural areas do not require a land use decision (i.e., a special use permit or plan amendment requiring notice and opportunity to appeal), and which transportation activities are permitted outright in the underlying land use zone. Reconstruction and modernization of existing roads is generally permitted outright in all rural areas that are not in Exclusive Farm Use or Forest zones, where construction of additional travel lanes and in some cases, the acquisition of land for additional right-of-way, are treated as special uses. Routine operation, maintenance, and preservation activities for roadways and other transportation facilities are permitted uses in rural zones. However, zoning is only one element of the numerous laws regulating road improvements or for that matter, any type of development. Road projects involving water crossings may require permits from and coordination with multiple federal, state, and local agencies responsible for administering floodplain, wetland, riparian and greenway regulations, and the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Such permits typically impose a variety of performance measures to control and reduce flood hazards, erosion, water quality degradation, and to otherwise protect natural resources. As described in the TSP Roadways Element, Chapter 4.1, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is the “project development” mechanism referenced in the TPR (OAR 660-012-0010(1)) that implements the TSP. CIP projects are adopted as part of a financial program that is updated each year. In addition, individual road project designs are subject to procedures specified in Lane Manual. Citizens have input into transportation planning and project development at multiple levels: the TSP adoption process, the annual CIP program adoption process, individual project design development, and through any required land use permit application process. Roads and Private Development Private development has an impact on the transportation system. For instance, land divisions may result in significant traffic increases, and new commercial and industrial uses sometimes bring additional heavy equipment uses onto the road system. Prior to 1949 there was no County land division ordinance. Consequently, many pre-1949 plats in the County include no, or substandard roads. Roads within these plats were dedicated to and, in most cases, accepted by the County. It is not uncommon for these “paper plats” to include no consideration of physical land limitations such as topography, wet areas, or physical obstructions. In addition, in past years, neither road improvements nor surveys were required prior to final plat approval. As a result, new roads constructed for private development were improperly located in the absence of a survey. Such circumstances present challenges in balancing public safety, access management, and equitable road improvement requirements as the platted lots develop over time on an individual basis.

54

Although it has rarely been used, petitioning to the County and formation of a local improvement district (LID) is an equitable approach available to property owners seeking improvements to roads adjacent to their land. This is referred to as a “special assessment for public improvements” in Lane Code Chapter 15. Recent use of the special assessment process has been limited to initiation by resolution of the County Board, through the Capital Improvement Program, for improvements on County-maintained urban collector and arterial streets. Goals And Policies: Transportation And Land Use Goal 20: Ensure that transportation projects comply with state land use requirements regarding urban

and rural land uses, and other federal, state, and local land use requirements.

Policy 20-a: Transportation projects, facilities, services and improvements as identified in Oregon Administrative Rules 660-012-0065 and as implemented in Lane Code may be permitted on rural lands consistent with statewide land use Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 without a goal exception.

Policy 20-b: The following transportation facility improvements do not require an amendment to the TSP

unless an exception to state land use laws or a TSP amendment is otherwise required. (i) Channelization (ii) Operation, maintenance, and repair (iii) Preservation (iv) Reconstruction (v) Rehabilitation (vi) Intersection improvements (vii) Realignment (viii) Modernization (ix) Transportation facilities, services and improvements serving local travel needs. The

travel capacity and level of service of facilities and improvements serving local travel needs shall be limited to that necessary to support rural land uses identified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan or to provide adequate emergency access.

Policy 20-c: Plan amendments, zone changes, and other land use decisions shall consider impacts on the

County transportation system, including federal, state, county, and other local roads; bicycle and pedestrian paths; public transit facilities; and air, rail, port, and pipeline facilities.

Policy 20-d: Amendments to the comprehensive plan or any of its adopted components and sub-plans,

which significantly affect a transportation facility, shall ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with road function, capacity, level of service, and other adopted performance standards. This may be accomplished by: (i) limiting land uses to the existing road capacity or level of service; (ii) amending the TSP pursuant to Lane Code 16.400(9), to provide adequate facilities; (iii) altering the land use designation, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand

for auto travel and meeting travel needs through other modes, or (iv) amend the TSP, pursuant to LC 16.400(9), to modify the planned function, capacity

and performance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian friendly development where multimodal travel choices are provided. If a TSP amendment is required, it shall not be initiated unless the requirements of LC 16.400(9) have been met.

A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility, if it: (i) Changes the functional class of an existing or planned facility, or will result in the

roadway facility no longer meeting the functional class definition;

55

(ii) Changes standards that implement the functional class, except that approval of an exception or variance to standards does not in itself significantly affect a transportation facility;

(iii) Allows types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional class; or

(iv) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.

Determinations under this policy shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments.

Policy 20-e: The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an exception

under OAR 660-012, OAR 660-004-0022 or OAR 660-004-0028, to allow residential, commercial, institutional or industrial development on rural lands.

Policy 20-f: When an exception to statewide land use goals and/or a plan amendment is required for a

transportation facility, the approval process should be consolidated with other public hearings and approvals required for the project before the Roads Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the County Board of Commissioners.

Policy 20-g: Amendments to the County Transportation System Plan shall be processed according to

applicable state law requirements, the provisions set forth in Lane Code Chapter 12, and Lane Code 16.400.

Policy 20-h: Road improvement projects shall comply with federal, state, and local land use regulations.

Goal 21: Provide for coordinated land use review when making decisions about transportation facilities.

Policy 21-a: It is the County’s intent that the Transportation System Plan be consistent with state Transportation System Plans, with TransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan applicable inside the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan boundary), and with the Transportation System Plans of other cities within the County.

Policy 21-b: County TSP goals and policies apply to:

(i) all roads in the County that have been dedicated to and formally accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, unless and until such roads are subsequently accepted or annexed by an incorporated community; and

(ii) all other transportation facilities and services, including road, air, rail, pipeline and port facilities, located outside of urban growth boundaries or outside of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan boundary.

Policy 21-c: Where inconsistencies exist between the County TSP and other TSPs applicable within the

County, or between road design standards of the County and other jurisdictions within the County, the following guidelines shall be used in making decisions about road improvements and services. If the inconsistency involves: (i) a state highway, state transportation system plans and design standards shall prevail; (ii) a public or private road outside of an urban growth boundary, the County TSP and

road design standards shall prevail; (iii) a public or private road functionally classified as a local road within an urban growth

boundary, the City TSP and applicable road design standards shall prevail; (iv) a road defined as a County Road pursuant to Lane Code 15.010 and functionally

classified as a collector or arterial road, the County TSP and road design standards shall prevail;

56

(v) a public or private road functionally classified as a local road or primarily used to provide local access to abutting properties within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan boundary, TransPlan and the respective applicable Eugene or Springfield road design standards shall prevail within the urban growth boundary and the applicable County Road design standards shall apply outside the urban growth boundary;

(vi) an intersection or roads in more than one jurisdiction’s ownership or control, the TSP goals and road design standards of the agency having ultimate maintenance responsibility shall prevail.

Decisions about road improvements may follow different guidelines than those above upon agreement of the elected officials of the involved jurisdictions or their designees, or if other recorded inter-jurisdictional agreements exist that supersede the above guidelines.

Goal 22: Encourage adequate road improvements for new development.

Policy 22-a: The dedication of adequate right-of-way and construction of road improvements may be required to serve traffic that will be generated due to the development.

Policy 22-b: The County will consider opportunities to purchase land for extensions of right-of-way where

connectivity between collector and arterial roads is needed to promote efficient traffic flow. Policy 22-c: The County encourages and will facilitate the formation of Local Improvement (special

assessment) Districts to address road improvement needs on sub-standard roads. Policy 22-d: Road vacations proposed as part of lot or parcel reconfigurations or property line

adjustments, that will result in loss of connectivity between dedicated public and/or County Roads shall require approval of a replat of all subdivision lots and partition parcels adjacent to the road to be vacated. As part of the replat process, the County may require dedication of right-of-way or the creation of private easements, and road improvements, to ensure previously existing connectivity between public or County Roads is maintained.

Policy 22-e: Roads that were dedicated to the County but were never accepted shall be subject to goals,

policies, and standards applicable to private roads and easements, unless otherwise specified.

57

CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 6.1. County Profile And Trends This section provides an overview of Lane County’s population, employment, truck commodity flows, commuting habits, survey information about transportation concerns, and land use with regard to transportation system implications. Data was collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Oregon Administrative Services Office of Economic Analysis, the Oregon Employment Department, the state’s Population Research Center, the Oregon Blue Book, and other sources as noted. Lane County was named for General Joseph Lane, who was Oregon's first territorial governor. It began as a farming community in the late 1840s, and was established as a county in 1851. With the building of the railroads, the market for timber opened in the 1880s. Today, wood products and farming are still important sectors of the economy in addition to high-tech manufacturing and tourism. Lane County government operates under a home rule charter approved by voters in 1962. Population Lane County’s population in the year 2000 was 322,959 (U.S. Census). Between 1990 and 2000, the County’s population grew at an annual rate of one to two percent, with an overall increase of 14.2%. This compares with the state’s increase over the same period of 20.4% and the national increase of 13.1%. Eugene and Springfield added a total of 33,405 people during the ten year period, making up 83% of the increase in the County as a whole. Table 9 from Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) on the following page summarizes population data for the County. Long-term projections produced by the State of Oregon Department of Administrative Services Office of Economic Analysis indicate Lane’s population should continue to grow between about one and two percent per year. By the year 2020, the County’s population is expected to increase 30% to 419,842 (Office of Economic Analysis projections). Employment After a history of economic ups and downs related to reliance on lumber and wood products, Lane County’s industry mix diversified in the 1990s. Increased industry diversification has contributed to a more stable economy, one less susceptible to downturns in the national business cycle. Lane County has witnessed a substantial increase in employment over the last 10 years. Nonfarm employment since 1990 has increased by approximately 2,600 jobs per year, or about 2.2 percent. Year 2000 Employment within the County was 158,300. By 2020, the Office of Economic Analysis projects nonfarm employment in the County to grow at a slower rate than it did during the 1990s, to 179,512 jobs, an increase of 13.5% over 2000 employment. It is likely that most of employment growth will occur in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area. Truck Commodity Flows In 1998, the Oregon Department of Transportation published results of a study of truck commodity flows within Oregon. Trucking accounts for 76% of the weight of all freight shipments, and 64% of the value in Oregon, according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. For the Willamette Valley/Southwest Oregon, farming and wood products are major truck exports. Orchard crops, vegetables, grains, hay, seeds and berries result in daily export truck trips worth nearly $7 million. Lumber is also a major commodity.

Annual verage wth Rate 80-2000

Annual Average

Growth Rate 1970-2000

Annual Average

Growth Rate 1960-2000

Oregon 1.3% 1.7% 1.7% Lane C 0.8% 1.4% 1.7% Cities Eugen 1.3% 1.9% 2.5% Spring 1.2% 2.3% 2.5% Cottag 0.8% 1.1% 2.0% Floren 2.5% 4.0% 3.8% Juncti 1.8% 2.3% 2.7% Oakrid -0.8% -0.3% 1.2% Venet 0.6% 2.3% Cresw 3.6% 3.7% 3.9% Dunes 0.5% 0.8% Lowel 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% Cobur 1.6% 1.0% 0.6% Westf -0.6% Incorpo 1.3% 2.0% 2.6% Uninco -0.2% 0.3% 0.5%

Sources:

Table 9

Population for Lane County and Cities

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

% Change 1990-2000

Numerical

Change 1990-2000

Annual Average

Growth Rate 1990-2000

AGro

19 1,768,687 2,091,533 2,633,105 2,842,321 3,421,399 20.4% 579,078 1.9% ounty 162,890 215,401 275,226 282,912 322,959 14.2% 40,047 1.3%

e 50,977 79,028 105,664 112,669 137,893 22.4% 25,224 2.0% field 19,616 26,874 41,621 44,683 52,864 18.3% 8,181 1.7% e Grove 3,895 6,004 7,148 7,402 8,445 14.1% 1,043 1.3% ce 1,642 2,246 4,411 5,162 7,263 40.7% 2,101 3.5% on City 1,614 2,373 3,320 3,670 4,721 28.6% 1,051 2.6% ge 1,973 3,422 3,729 3,063 3,148 2.8% 85 0.3%

a 1,377 2,449 2,519 2,755 9.4% 236 0.9% ell 760 1,199 1,770 2,431 3,579 47.2% 1,148 3.9% City 976 1,124 1,081 1,241 14.8% 160 1.4%

l 503 567 661 785 857 9.2% 72 0.9% g 754 713 699 763 969 27.0% 206 2.4% ir 312 278 276 -0.7% -2 -0.1%

rated 81,734 124,779 172,908 184,506 224,011 21.4% 39,505 2.0% rporated 81,156 90,622 102,318 98,406 98,948 0.6% 542 0.1% 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 Figures from U.S. Census; Lane Council of Governments (2002)

58

59

Washington State is the area’s most significant out-of-state trade partner, receiving 20 thousand tons worth nearly $1 million of lumber products daily, according to ODOT’s study. On an average weekday, approximately 19,000 trucks enter Oregon carrying 250 thousand tons of goods worth $161 million. While the majority of goods go to Portland, the Willamette Valley/Southwest region ranks second in Oregon in shipments from other states. Washington and California account for more than three quarters of all truck imports to Oregon. Of the remaining 25%, approximately 11% of truck imports come from the Mountain Pacific, Midwest, and South regions. Commute Destinations Where people live relative to where they work has a significant impact on traffic congestion. According to the 1998 ODOT report on commuting patterns, based upon 1990 data, 116,269 of 118,925 Lane County residents (98%) also work within Lane County, and 72,275 of 73,151 residents (99%) of Eugene-Springfield also work within the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. Additionally, many people who do not live in Eugene-Springfield commute there from throughout the County and elsewhere. It is not only the dominant employment center for the County, but also offers services not otherwise available in the County, such as health care. LCOG compiled data about commuting patterns in the County, based upon the 1990 Census. About 25% of workers who resided in Oakridge in 1990 commuted to jobs in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. This compares to about 59% of Junction City workers, about 58% of Creswell workers, and about 76% of Veneta workers. The 2000 Census includes data on Commuting to Work, shown in the following table. Table 10: Percent of Commuters to Work Using Various Commuting Modes, and Mean Travel Time (U.S. Census 2000)

Single Occ.

Vehicle

Car/Van

Pool

Transit

Walk

Bike/ Other

Work at

home

Mean travel time

(minutes) Oregon 73.2 12.2 4.2 3.6 1.9 5.0 22.2 Lane County 71.6 12.2 3.3 4.2 3.7 5.1 19.9 Coburg 79.7 10.1 --- 3.9 .6 5.8 19.9 Cottage Grove 77.8 11.7 1.5 4.5 1.1 3.4 22.8 Dunes City 81.1 7.7 --- 3.6 .7 6.8 23.0 Eugene 66.8 11.2 4.9 6.1 6.2 4.7 16.9 Florence 71.0 13.5 .6 11.1 1.0 2.8 12.9 Junction City 77.1 11.7 --- 5.4 3.2 2.6 19.9 Lowell 74.4 15.7 .3 3.8 --- 4.8 26.4 Oakridge 65.0 22.7 --- 6.1 .6 5.6 25.2 Springfield 73.5 14.3 4.6 2.0 2.1 3.5 19.8 Veneta 81.1 12.3 --- 2.3 .8 3.6 25.9 Westfir 68.0 22.1 .8 2.5 1.6 4.9 36.7

It is noteworthy that Oakridge and Westfir, located about 45 miles from the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area have a significantly lower percentage of single occupant vehicle commutes than all other communities (except that Eugene’s single occupant vehicle percentage is slightly lower than Westfir’s). 22.7% of Oakridge residents, and 22.1% of Westfir residents, use car/van pools for work commuting, percentages that are significantly higher than those for other communities that are closer to Eugene. LTD runs a van service between Eugene-Springfield and these two cities. The data suggests that distance plays a factor in the decision by residents of Oakridge and Westfir who work in the Eugene-Springfield area to use the van service. Other communities which are closer to Eugene-Springfield, including Cottage Grove, Junction City, Lowell, and Veneta, are all served with transit. However, there is no significant difference in single occupant vehicle or transit use for these communities, suggesting that residents who live there and work in Eugene choose not to use transit, in part based upon a shorter commute compared to that for Westfir/Oakridge residents.

60

Transportation Issues and Livability Concerns Transportation relates strongly to livability concerns. Air quality contributes significantly to livability, and motor vehicles are a major source of carbon monoxide and other air pollutants. In addition, the distribution of population compared to economic activities is directly related to traffic congestion. In 1998, the Willamette Valley Livability Forum5 commissioned two surveys totaling 1,156 residents 18 years of age and older throughout the Valley, regarding concerns about growth and future livability. Respondents were asked about various issues that were categorized and ranked within each county. Selected results of the survey provide information about Lane County residents’ concerns about transportation-related issues. Of 16 issues, Lane County respondents ranked traffic congestion and air quality as their fourth highest concerns. Respondents were also asked about desired outcomes for 13 scenarios in 20 years time. As with all five counties, the most desired item for Lane was having good air and water quality 20 years from now. Land Use Trends Lane County is one of only two Oregon counties (Douglas County being the other) that extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Cascade mountain range, covering 4,620 square miles, or almost 3 million acres of land. Roughly 4,515 square miles are outside of urban growth boundaries. Of that, 4,395 square miles are in resource use, and approximately 120 square miles (76,800 acres) are developed or committed to development. Unlike any other county in Oregon, all 19 statewide land use goals apply to Lane County. Most of Lane County’s incorporated communities are located within a 30 mile radius of the Eugene-Springfield area. Lane’s other population centers outside of the Eugene-Springfield area include the corridor between Florence and Dunes City on the Coast, and the Oakridge/Westfir area in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains. Eugene and Springfield include approximately 60% of the County’s population, based upon Census 2000 data. Approximately 10% of the County population lives in other incorporated communities, and 30% live outside of City limits. Most of the latter population live in the County’s 35 unincorporated communities. Outside of urban growth boundaries, state land use laws primarily determine where new development can occur. While Eugene-Springfield is the third largest Metropolitan Statistical Area in Oregon (with the Portland-Vancouver and Salem-Keizer MSAs being larger), the majority of the County is in resource zoning, including 90% in Forest zones. State land use laws restrict development in resource areas. Nonresource zones, or “developed and committed” areas of the County are those areas that allow residential development to occur. These areas are generally composed of the County’s 35 unincorporated communities. Lane County has an unusually large amount of detailed data regarding these areas. The data was developed by the County in response to a 1988 Oregon Supreme Court decision that overturned the State Land Conservation and Development Commission’s (LCDC) acknowledgment of portions of the Rural Comprehensive Plan. Under close scrutiny of Department of Lane Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff and 1000 Friends of Oregon, Lane County re-evaluated its data. The result was a file for each developed and committed area including a report of the number of tax lots, dwellings, and vacant tax lots. In 1996, the data was updated as part of early efforts associated with the Transportation System Plan update. This work involved re-examining the data for each developed and committed area as to the zoning, the number of built

5 The Willamette Valley Livability Forum was created in December 1996 by Governor John Kitzhaber to identify and promote solutions to the growth and development issues that face Willamette Valley communities. It consists of a voluntary consortium of citizen leaders and representatives of businesses, non-profit organizations, and local, state, and federal governments.

61

upon and vacant parcels, estimating the number of parcels that could be re-divided, and estimating the number of parcels that could be rezoned to a higher density. This data indicated that approximately 2,600 vacant parcels remained in developed and committed areas. The data was revisited again in 2001, when the County updated its zoning to comply with new and stricter state density requirements adopted by DLCD in October 2000. Given that the density requirements reduced or eliminated the ability to rezone and/or re-divide most residential parcels, the estimate resulted in a decrease of approximately 800 vacant parcels. In addition, based upon building permit activity, it was estimated that approximately 300 additional parcels had been developed since the 1996 analysis, resulting in approximately 1,500 vacant parcels remaining in developed and committed areas that could be developed outside of urban growth boundaries. In these areas, state and local law allow only one primary dwelling per parcel, so this represents 1,500 new residences. These parcels are not located in any particular vicinity, but are scattered throughout the County’s developed and committed areas. The relatively low number of remaining, vacant developed and committed parcels is not surprising, given that Lane County was required to comply with strict state criteria when initially designating these lands as “developed and committed”. The analysis does not consider whether new dwellings could be built on any Impacted Forest (F-2) zone or Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) parcels, where dwellings are allowed under special use permits if certain state land use criteria are met. A count of dwelling permits issued for vacant parcels was done for 1999, 2000, and 2001. The count was based upon dwelling permits associated with a new address. (When a new address is needed for a development permit, it typically indicates that the parcel where the residence is being built was vacant). For the F-2 zone, the criteria that are most easily met are generally based upon proving that the surrounding area is already relatively developed. As a result, it is anticipated that the number of remaining F-2 parcels that can qualify will decrease over time, as the remaining, smaller F-2 parcels are developed (larger parcels cannot meet the criteria for a dwelling, and generally cannot be divided to less than 80 acres in size). In 1999, 2000, and 2001, new addresses and dwelling permits issued for F-2 parcels totaled approximately 28, 25, and 26 respectively. In the EFU zone, the state criteria for obtaining a new dwelling are not based upon surrounding development, but rather on farm income. The EFU criteria are extremely difficult to meet, as evidenced by the number of new dwelling permits issued for EFU parcels. New addresses and dwelling permits issued for EFU parcels in 1999, 2000, and 2001 totaled approximately 11, 10, and 8, respectively. Since a small percentage of new addresses are issued for existing dwellings that are relocated on a tract, the number of vacant F-2 and EFU parcels is likely somewhat lower than these numbers indicate. While a more extensive and time consuming analysis could be done for a small number of areas, it would not be expected to result in significant changes in the estimates for purposes of this analysis, in part because it is anticipated that the number of parcels that could meet F-2 special use permit requirements will decline over time, and because the number of new dwellings in the EFU zones is relatively low overall. Nor does it consider the potential for development resulting from possible successful plan amendments to change plan designations from resource to non-resource use (which would require taking an “exception” to statewide land use laws, a difficult and complex threshold to meet). Furthermore, the analysis does not consider what could happen if state land use laws were changed, a distinct possibility given the efforts to do so over past years. In summary, given that statewide land use laws discourage development outside of urban growth boundaries, and given the relatively low number of vacant, developable parcels estimated to remain outside of urban growth boundaries (UGBs), potential new dwellings on vacant parcels are likely to be relatively few over the next 20 years. Of greater influence with regard to transportation facility capacity issues is how much growth will occur in cities and the impact on collectors and arterials. While rural development is expected to be part of the cumulative effect on transportation facilities, capacity issues are more likely related to population growth within UGBs, increasing tourism travel and travel between communities, rather than new development in rural areas. Moreover, as population increases, there will be an increased need for the delivery of commodities, which will result in increased truck traffic between communities as well as through traffic to areas like Portland outside of Lane County.

62

6.2. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW Revenue Sources The primary revenue sources for the County Road Fund are the state Highway Fund (gas tax, weight-mile fees and other highway user fees) and National Forest timber receipts. Secondary sources of revenue are interest earnings on the road fund reserve, state or federal aid grants or contributions to projects by other agencies. National Forest Receipts Lane County has enjoyed a substantial reserve in the Road Fund primarily due to National Forest Receipts, mostly from timber harvests from the national forests in Lane County. Federal law requires that 25% of all national forest receipts be paid to the state in which the forest is located. Revenues from the national forests are to be used for the benefit of public schools and public roads. ORS 294.060 requires that 75 percent of these receipts be dedicated to the County Road Fund and 25 percent to the County School Fund. During the 1980's, timber receipts were the largest Road Fund revenue source by far, peaking at almost $26 million in fiscal year (FY) 89-90. At that time, State Highway Trust Fund revenue was $9.3 million. Changes in timber management policy in the 1990's drastically reduced national timber harvests, including those in Lane County. In 1990, 1993, and 2000, Congress passed legislation that sustained timber receipt payments to Lane County through various "guarantee" formulas, which have stabilized the timber revenue decline. The most recent federal guarantee legislation, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act was passed in 2000. The Act provides additional funding for road purposes through Federal FY 06. This influx of new revenue created short-term opportunities for the County. In response, the County Board of Commissioners created the Capital Project Partnership Program and, during FY 01-02, allocated over $9 million to projects on state highways and city streets in Lane County. Federal Aid/Fund Exchange The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and its predecessors provided federal aid funds for highway capital improvement projects. Lane County has received federal aid allocations historically from both the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area allocation and the allocation to rural systems through an agreement between ODOT and the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC). Although small in the overall Road Fund picture, these allocations have funded important projects in the past, such as construction of the Northwest Expressway and the initial grade separation at the Beltline/Coburg Road interchange. State Highway Fund The State Highway Fund consists of state motor fuel taxes (currently 24 cents per gallon), state weight-mile taxes for heavy vehicles, motor vehicle registration fees, fines, licenses and other miscellaneous revenues. Highway fund revenues are distributed to cities based upon the ratio of each City’s population to the total statewide population within cities. Revenues are distributed to counties based upon each county’s proportion of registered vehicles to the statewide total. Lane County’s portion has been declining as the Portland metropolitan area has been growing at a faster rate. The Oregon Constitution requires that revenue from motor vehicle and gasoline taxes be used exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads, streets, and roadside rest areas. Investment Earnings These revenues accrue from the interest earned on investments made by the County with the cash on hand from the Road Fund. Investment earnings are subject to the same restrictions of use as the gas tax and national forest revenues. The type of investments available to the County are restricted by ORS and further subject to the policies and conditions recommended by the County Board of Commissioners and approved by the State Treasurer.

63

Other Revenue Sources Lane County receives revenues from a variety of other sources, including assessments for road construction projects, reimbursement from the County Surveyor’s Corners Fund, and work performed for other County departments and other government agencies. Issues And Trends Despite healthy cash reserves, the future of Road Fund revenue sources and levels continues to be uncertain due to dependence on revenues collected by the Federal government and the State and the unpredictable nature of legislation regarding these revenue sources. However, through prudent management of the Fund, Lane County has dealt with this uncertainty. The County has performed a balancing act of sorts, to: • maintain its road and bridge system to a high standard; • pursue a substantial and vigorous Capital Improvement Program (CIP), funding many projects on the County

Road System, City road systems, and, to a lesser extent, on the ODOT system; and • share timber receipt revenue with the cities in Lane County for general road operation and maintenance. If the U.S. Congress continues legislation beyond FY 06-07 that maintains payments to Lane County at similar levels as in the past, all of these expenditures will likely continue in a balance, or mix, similar to the last two decades. If revenues decline substantially, all Road Fund programs will likely be affected. Stagnation at the state level since the early 1990's regarding gas tax increases or substitute revenue sources has increased the pressure on city, county, and ODOT road budgets across the state. If this trend continues, Lane County will be faced with difficult choices in terms of how to share federal timber receipts. If state revenue problems are accompanied by a corresponding drop in federal timber receipt payments to Lane County, these choices will be even more difficult. The Oregon school finance dilemma could also affect the Federal Timber Receipt distribution formula. School finance packages considered in recent sessions proposed changing the 75/25 split. However, because this change would seriously reduce most counties’ road funds and only marginally add to most school funds, such proposals have historically been defeated each time it was introduced. While the Road Fund currently has an ample cash reserve, current planned expenditures will draw down the Road Fund cash balance over time. Table 11 at the end of this section reflects a revenue and expenditure scenario produced by the Public Works Department in March 2002 that assumed that the timber "guarantee" is not renewed and that timber receipts would be based on current harvest levels. If that occurred and Road Fund spending continued at the rate projected, by FY 07-08 the Fund cash balance would be exhausted. However, it is important to note that this scenario will not occur because prior to that time, adjustments in either projected revenue stream or proposed projects and expenditures would be made. The projections in Table 11 are based upon the following assumptions, updated to reflect the FY02-03 budget and the adopted FY03-07 CIP: 1. Federal county payments legislation will remain intact through FY06-07, but will not be renewed by Congress. 2. The State Legislature will not increase road user fees; transfers from the State Highway Fund will meet current

ODOT forecasts. 3. The Legislature will not change the timber receipt distribution formula. 4. The distribution formula for State Highway Fund transfers will remain intact. 5. Lane County will continue to provide the same level of road maintenance and preservation activities as it

presently does.

64

6. Compliance with environmental regulations such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act will not significantly increase operating costs.

7. Projects in the adopted FY03-07 CIP will be constructed as programmed. 8. The County/City Road Partnership program will remain in its current form and at payments of $2.5 million per

year through FY08. 9. There will not be another round of Capital Project Partnership (CaPP) program funding. FinPlan Concerned by the sudden Federal Timber Receipts revenue decline, the County developed a Road Fund Financial Plan (FinPlan) in 1991, which was approved by the County Board of Commissioners. In 1995, with continued uncertainty regarding national timber receipts, a set of contingency priorities were incorporated into the FinPlan for Board consideration. The FinPlan document provided the starting point for financial goals and policies included in this chapter of the TSP. Future Spending And Prioritization The TSP must attempt to prepare Lane County for a wide range of potential financial circumstances. Revenue uncertainty is dealt with by outlining goals for Road Fund stability and management to be pursued over the next 20 years, and by establishing a set of priorities for Road Fund expenditures. Priorities are important for several reasons. Priorities can guide decisions to reduce expenditures during times of revenue shortfall. They also can be used to describe activities to be funded if the Board decides to seek new revenues. Adopting priorities provides clear direction to the public and staff as to how the Board intends to allocate funds. The goals and policies place primary emphasis on operation, maintenance, preservation, and safety on the County Road system. A second tier of priorities deals with improvement of the County system and basic operation of City road systems. A third set of priorities relates to economic development and off-system project funding. It is important to clarify the relationship between expenditure priorities and the project list included in the TSP. The Needs Assessment prepared for the TSP is based on a review of roadway conditions and County Road standards. The resulting project list is based solely upon the road network’s physical assessment and not on a predicted revenue stream nor on priorities established through public involvement. Priority setting occurs as part of the yearly budget and CIP adoption process. As revenues contract, there will be an emphasis on basic County operation, maintenance, and preservation. As revenues expand, priorities will include more County modernization projects and a broader sharing of resources with cities and ODOT

Table 11: Lane County Road Fund Revenue/Expense Forecast October, 2002

FY01-02 FY02-03 FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08

Revenues Federal Timber Receipts 19,206,000 19,398,000 19,631,000 19,896,000 20,165,000 20,447,000 5,000,000

State Highway Fund Transfer 14,950,000 12,124,000 12,488,000 13,482,000 13,725,000 13,807,000 13,945,000Federal Aid/Fund Exchange 533,000 2,210,000 555,000 555,000 555,000 555,000 555,000

Investment Earnings 2,193,000 1,850,000 2,090,000 1,550,000 1,180,000 810,000 520,000Other 3,620,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 3,380,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000

Total New Revenue 40,502,000 38,582,000 37,264,000 38,863,000 38,125,000 38,119,000 22,520,000Cash Balance for Previous FY 43,629,000 48,930,000 38,928,600 26,490,000 23,278,000 11,033,000 11,033,000

Total Resources 84,131,000

87,512,000

76,192,600

65,353,000

61,403,000

49,152,000

33,553,000

Expenses

Public Works Administration 2,440,000 2,850,000 2,960,000 3,060,000 3,160,000 3,270,000 3,400,000Engineering Division 18,780,000 22,080,000 22,940,000 23,710,000 24,250,000 25,080,000 26,080,000

Surveyor/Land Mgt. Division 2,040,000 2,240,000 2,330,000 2,420,000 2,510,000 2,600,000 2,710,000Sheriff's Office 1,550,000 1,570,000 1,630,000 1,690,000 1,750,000 1,810,000 1,880,000

Finance & Management 130,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 220,000 230,000Operating Budget Subtotal 24,940,000

28,930,000

30,060,000

31,090,000

31,890,000

32,980,000

34,300,000

Lapse and Unexpended 1,450,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 1,590,000 1,650,000 1,720,000

Operating Expense Subtotal 27,480,000

28,560,000

29,540,000

30,300,000

31,330,000

32,580,000

Capital Projects on County System 6,677,000 12,628,000 13,758,000 10,035,000 16,570,000 11,700,000 8,700,000County/City Road Partnership 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000

Capital Project Partnership 40,000 5,368,400 3,653,000 0 0 0 0Projects/Payments for Agencies 62,000 607,000 1,232,000 0 1,000,000 0 0

Comm'ty Devel. Fd (EDAP bef. FY00) 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0Capital Expense Subtotal 9,319,000

21,103,400

21,143,000

12,535,000

20,070,000

14,200,000

11,200,000

Total Road Fund Expenses 34,259,000

48,583,400

49,703,000

42,075,000

50,370,000

45,530,000

43,780,000

Cash Balance/Reserves

Total Resources 84,131,000 87,512,000 76,192,600 65,353,000 61,403,000 49,152,000 33,553,000Total Road Fund Expenses 34,259,000 48,583,400 49,703,000 42,075,000 50,370,000 45,530,000 43,780,000

Estimated Cash Balance at FYE 49,872,000 38,928,600 26,489,600 23,278,000 11,033,000 3,622,000 -10,227,000Actual Cash Balance at FYE 48,930,000

Encumbered/Committed at FYE 4,420,000

10,583,000

6,350,000

12,100,000

8,400,000

8,700,000

0

Reserves at FYE Subject to Rebudget 45,452,000 28,345,600 20,139,600 11,178,000 2,633,000 -5,078,000 -10,227,000

65

Needs Assessment And Capital Expenditures Needs Assessment in the TSP The Needs Assessment in the TSP identified rural and urban road segments that met basic criteria for upgrades to County standards. A subset of 70 projects, mostly on the rural system and totaling about $101 million, are on a list of projects that are planned for construction over the next twenty years. Needs from City TSPs In addition to projects identified from the Needs Assessment, projects have been identified in adopted TSPs for the cities within Lane County (Florence’s TSP is pending final adoption by the County as of this writing). Total capital needs on County Roads identified by the Lane County TSP and City TSPs is an estimated $194 million. Table 12 shows a listing of these project totals by TSP.

Table 12: Summary of Identified Capital Needs, Lane County Road System in adopted City TSPs and County TSP

2002 Status System Plan

Number of

Projects

Total

Projected Cost

Completed

Programmed

Unprogrammed Coburg TSP 3 $ 1,450,000 $ 1,450,000 Cottage Grove TSP 8 $ 3,240,000 $ 660,000 $ 2,580,000 Creswell TSP 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Dunes City (1) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Florence TSP (2) 3 $ 2,100,000 $ 2,100,000 Junction City TSP 11 $ 9,370,000 $ 500,000 $ 8,870,000 Lowell (1) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Oakridge TSP 4 $ 2,450,000 $ 2,450,000 TransPlan (Eugene /Springfield TSP)

33 $ 71,020,000 $ 7,325,000 $43,400,000 $ 20,295,000

Veneta TSP 3 $ 2,420,000 $ 2,420,000 Westfir (1) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Subtotal Urban TSP 66 $ 92,250,000 $9,435,000 $43,900,000 $ 38,915,000 Lane County TSP 70 $ 101,315,000 $21,360,000 $79,955,000 Total Projects 136 $193,565,000 $9,435,000 $65,260,000 $ 118,870,000

(1) No TSP. Any capital needs included in Lane County TSP totals. (2) Projects derived from Draft Florence TSP. Projects subject to change Notes: a. Cost estimates for unprogrammed City TSP projects are taken from the respective TSPs and have not been adjusted to reflect

current dollars. b. Cost estimates for all programmed projects are taken from the 2003-2007 Lane County Capital Improvement Program. c. Unprogrammed Lane County TSP project costs are estimated using a per-mile unit cost of $625,000 for rural projects and

$2,050,000 for urban projects. d. Cost estimates are subject to change based on, but not limited to, factors such as changes in project scope, unforeseen

construction costs, inflation, and the application of more detailed engineering and design analysis during project development. e. Total costs are shown on joint projects. The County’s share may be less.

66

Capital Expenditure History Table 13 on the following page is a history of capital expenditures on the County Road System, both urban and rural, for FY 1984-2001. This illustrates a long track record of investment around the County on a wide variety of roadways. Expenditures programmed in the CIP over this period totaled over $250 million. Over $56 million of this total were payments to cities under the County-City Road partnership program. These are listed under "Payments to other Agencies" in the CIP, but are primarily used by cities for operations, maintenance, and preservation. Subtracting out this total, over $190 million was invested in capital road projects by the County for the period FY 1984 -2001.

67

Table 13: Road Fund Capital Expenditures for FY 84/85-FY 01/02 Category

General County/City Special Preservation Economic AssistedGeographic Area Total Construction Partnership Payments Projects Operations Development Housing Misc

Eugene 93,312,880$ 36,740,009$ 30,594,457$ 14,649,031$ 8,757,946$ 5,329$ 242,634$ 2,323,475$ -$ Springfield 33,464,143$ 8,321,964$ 11,727,495$ 7,011,593$ 2,056,209$ -$ 3,868,440$ 478,441$ -$

Subtotal Metro Area 126,777,023$ 45,061,973$ 42,321,952$ 21,660,624$ 10,814,156$ 5,329$ 4,111,074$ 2,801,916$ -$ Small Cities

Coburg 2,934,676$ 802,249$ 88,032$ 52,836$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cottage Grove 1,689,160$ 2,878,000$ 886,011$ 192,394$ -$ 157,608$ -$ -$

Creswell 217,811$ 956,016$ 22,046$ 61,612$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Dunes City 1,449,387$ 1,086,875$ 139,005$ 747,249$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Florence 649,740$ 2,485,243$ 338,835$ 401,296$ -$ 950,000$ -$ -$ Junction City 599,483$ 1,379,265$ 79,034$ 801,580$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Lowell 583,282$ 566,417$ 92,050$ 501,729$ -$ 187,903$ -$ -$ Oakridge 332$ 1,486,268$ 245,008$ -$ -$ 1,039,515$ -$ -$

Veneta -$ 1,702,473$ 733,215$ 26,414$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Westfir -$ 390,156$ 153,088$ 19,658$ 6,056$ -$ -$ -$

Subtotal Small Cities 29,779,007$ 8,123,871$ 13,732,962$ 2,776,323$ 2,804,769$ 6,056$ 2,335,026$ -$ -$

Subtotal Rural Areas 86,395,801$ 54,345,549$ N.A. N.A. 27,768,025$ 4,179,126$ 103,101$ -$ 7,251,825$

Total Countywide 250,203,657$ 107,531,393$ 56,054,914$ 24,436,947$ 41,386,949$ 4,190,511$ 6,549,201$ 2,801,916$ 7,251,825$

Other Special Payments 2,764,267$

GRAND TOTAL 252,967,924$

68

69

6.3. NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS Identification of transportation improvement projects is an essential part of transportation system planning. The Needs Assessment is the starting point for identifying road project candidates for modernization, reconstruction, or modification. As the rural major and minor collector system is the most extensive component of the County’s transportation infrastructure, it was analyzed on the basis of six criteria and prioritized using a point system. The County’s urban collector and arterial system was also analyzed. Local roads were not analyzed in the needs assessment. The six criteria used for the assessment include: • Pavement Condition Index • Pavement Structure (Crushed Based Equivalent, or CBE) • Roadway Width • Crash Rate • Average Daily Traffic (ADT) • Level of Service (LOS) In addition to the above technical considerations, a land use-based analysis of bicycle and pedestrian facilities serving local destinations in rural developed areas was completed, for both State and County Roads. The inventory methodology and results are discussed in this chapter following the Summary of Geometric/Technical Needs. For areas inside urban growth boundaries, bicycle and pedestrian facility needs are identified by the corresponding cities. The technical needs assessment and evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities near local destinations were used to develop the TSP project list. Bridges are evaluated biennially based upon federal requirements. A seismic evaluation was also completed in 1995. A description of these evaluations is included in this section. Finally, planning and assessment summaries for the state highway system, and recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian improvements to serve local travel on state facilities in rural developed areas concludes this section. Summary Of Geometric/Technical Needs Assessment Findings The road system was assessed in terms of safety, function, and structural condition. In the process, current and projected future conditions were determined and deficiencies were identified. Overall, the greatest deficiency found in the needs assessment is sub-standard road widths. The analysis shows that a significant number of road segments do not meet the minimum desirable width standards based upon functional class, terrain, and ADT. Structural deficiencies were the next most significant issue, with a number of road segments having less than desirable CBE. Safety concerns were given special consideration by calculating and evaluating crash rates. The analysis demonstrated that safety was not a systemic problem. The Pavement Condition Index shows that road surfaces are, for the most part, in good condition. Finally, Average Daily Traffic and Level of Service analyses show that capacity constraints are an issue isolated to the Eugene metro area, and lack of capacity is not expected to be a concern on the majority of the rural road system over the TSP planning period. An overall point total was given to “deficient” collector and arterial segments based upon the assessment criteria. Segments with a higher point total were identified for potential projects and incorporated into the TSP Project List after review by County engineering staff. Appendix G shows the needs assessment data, consisting of the points assigned to collector and arterial segments found to be “deficient” in any one of the assessment criteria categories. The point assignment key can also be found in Appendix G.

70

The following sections detail the criteria and results of the Needs Assessment. Explanations are also provided defining each criterion and the reason it was used. Pavement Condition A major goal of the 1991 Road Fund Financial Plan was to maintain and preserve at least 85% of the County’s roads in fair or better pavement condition. In terms of average ratings, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for County Roads is higher compared to the past several years. In 1986 the average County Road scored 72 out of 100 possible points. By 1995 the average had increased to 77, with highest ratings on the rural component of the system. Since then, higher ratings have been recorded on the urban component of the system. The current average has increased to 84 for all County Roads, including arterials, collectors, and local roads. Table 14 shows PCI in terms of share of miles in fair or better condition.

Table 14: Current Pavement Condition Index

Functional Class Miles in Fair or Better Condition

Percent in Fair or Better Condition

Miles with No PCI Data

2-Rural Minor Collector 279.3 80.1% 69.1 3-Rural Major Collector 151.3 99.5% 0.7 4-Rural Major Collector (fed) 196.1 93% 10.8 7-Urban Collector 22.8 92.3% 0.9 8-Urban Minor Arterial 17.5 92.3% 0.05 9-Urban Principal Arterial 7.5 100% 0

With some exceptions, the pavement condition rating is generally good for roads in the County system. Those with insufficient PCI are typically addressed by the County’s pavement preservation program. Pavement Structure The strength of the pavement structure of a roadway, typically expressed as an equivalent depth of crushed road in inches, or Crushed Based Equivalent (CBE), is an indicator of the underlying structural integrity of the roadway. By converting different pavement types to a CBE, we can compare asphalt, concrete, or bituminous treatment (oil mat) roads. CBE is measured via coring samples taken from the paved road surface. A lower CBE may indicate that there is not a sufficient material base, which may expedite road failure. Factors such as traffic volume, axle weight, and soil types affect the durability of the roadway. In the assessment, arterials and collectors with a CBE less than 16 inches were considered insufficient. The data revealed that many of the roads did not meet this threshold, as shown in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Crushed Based Equivalent Data Functional Class Miles <16-inches Percent <16-inches Miles with no CBE

Data 2-Rural Minor Collector 147.8 42.4% 45.8 3-Rural Major Collector 22.6 14.9% 30.9

4-Rural Major Collector (fed) 12.4 5.9% 16.5 7-Urban Collector 8.2 33.3% 9.5

8-Urban Minor Arterial 2.1 11.1% 6.9 9-Urban Principal Arterial No Data -- 7.4

While the miles of road not meeting the CBE threshold are significant, this alone does not make a segment a candidate for reconstruction. Rather this serves in combination with other factors as an indicator that further study is required. Of particular note are those roads that are designated as “load limited,” meaning heavy weight truck traffic is restricted to some degree, and also roads that are known to serve a larger number of trucks. Heavy truck traffic places greater stress on the roadbed, thus a larger CBE is required to support the loads. It is also clear that a number of segments have not been cored and have no CBE measurement. As some of these road segments are programmed into the project list for reasons other than CBE deficiency, this will presumably be tested as they are reconstructed or modified.

71

Road Width The width assessment for rural County Roads is based on Functional Class, ADT and terrain, and includes space for two travel lanes and shoulders on each side. Two-lane urban arterial and collectors use a single minimum standard of 32-feet, which represents travel lanes and bike lanes on each side. The minimum tolerable road widths used to screen the adequacy of the road system are shown in Table 16. The road design standards were in the process of development when the needs assessment was completed, so these widths may vary slightly from the road design standards to be adopted concurrently with the TSP.

Table 16: Minimum Road Widths Type of Terrain & Minimum Widths

Road Type ADT Level Rolling Mountainous Rural Collectors <100 22’ 20’ 18’ Rural Collectors 100<500 26’ 22’ 20’ Rural Collectors 500<1500 30’ 26’ 22’ Rural Collectors 1500 & greater 34’ 30’ 26’

Urban Arterials/Collectors NA 32’ 32’ 32’ Road segments were screened using the minimum width standards from Table 16. The percent of roads not meeting the standard is shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Roadways Failing to Meet Minimum Width Standard

Functional Class Miles Below Minimum

Width

Total Miles Percent Below

Minimum Width 2-Rural Minor Collector 186 348.6 53.4% 3-Rural Major Collector 63.2 152 41.6%

4-Rural Major Collector (fed) 71.8 210.7 34.1% 7-Urban Collector 20.2 24.6 82.1%

8-Urban Minor Arterial 7.4 18.9 39.2% 9-Urban Principal Arterial 1.8 7.4 24.3%

Clearly, it is not practical or desirable to pursue widening projects for all roads that do not meet the minimum width. It has also been taken into consideration that many of these roads are within a few feet or less from the minimum. As such, it is not a priority of the County to modify these roads solely on the basis of the width assessment. Instead, multiple factors from the needs assessment were considered when generating the project list. Crash Rate Safety is a chief concern for the road system. Crash data, evaluated by road segment, is compiled and analyzed to identify potential problem areas. This data was used to flag areas with a maximum crash threshold above 2 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled on any particular segment in the road inventory. The results show that 7.8% of the County’s road segments had a crash rate above 2. However, the statistical results can be misleading since short road segments with lower ADT will appear to have higher rates than longer road segments and/or higher ADT, although they may have only one recorded crash. In addition, the presence of a crash does not necessarily indicate a safety problem with the road, but perhaps driver error or poor weather conditions instead. Consequently, segments with crash rates above the maximum were analyzed individually to determine any trends or systemic problems with the roadway. In the process, many of the road segments were eliminated from further concern. Remaining segments were incorporated into the project list. Average Daily Traffic Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data is kept for most County Roads. The ADT values are determined from 48-hour counts that are averaged and adjusted for seasonal variations in traffic flow by month. The counts are totals for both directions of traffic on a two-way street, unless the roadway is a ramp or is one-way. ADT on most County Roads is relatively low, while higher ADT values are found on County Roads

72

in the Eugene-Springfield metro area. More heavily traveled roads are typically given priority when considering improvement projects. ADT data also helps identify areas that may have current or projected capacity problems. It is not expected that there will be capacity problems on the majority of the County’s rural road system. Table 18 is a summary of ADT levels for each functional class.

Table 18: Average Daily Traffic Summary Functional Class Mean ADT Range

Rural Minor Collector 737 20-4,000 Rural Major Collector 1,439 90-6,150 Rural Major Collector (fed aid) 2,797 120-11,850 Urban Collector 3,212 340-12,950 Urban Minor Arterial 8,008 1,350-26,550 Urban Principal Arterial 11,360 2,800-32,900

The highest volume road is the urban arterial Delta Highway (South of Green Acres Road), at 32,900 ADT. The highest ADT in the rural system is 11,850 on Prairie Road at mileposts 0.2-0.7. The lowest ADTs are recorded on a number of outlying rural minor collectors (less than 100 in some cases). A number of higher-volume County Roads in the Eugene/Springfield metro area have been improved in recent years or are programmed to be improved through the CIP process. The assessment chose urban segments greater than 5,000 ADT and rural segments greater than 10,000 ADT for further analysis, as shown in Table 19. The ADT threshold could be breached based on current values or year 2020 projections. ADT projections were roughly approximated assuming 2 percent annual growth in ADT over the 20-year period. Again, using this threshold indicated that capacity constraint issues are not a major concern on the County’s rural collector system. The ADT assessment was used mainly to highlight high-volume roads for additional study. The few segments with potential capacity problems have been incorporated into the project list.

Table 19: Higher ADT Roads

Functional Class Rural Miles at

10,000 ADT and Greater

Urban Miles at 5,000 ADT and

Greater

Percent of Total

Miles 2 – Rural Minor Collector 0 -- 0% 3 – Rural Major Collector 0 -- 0%

4 – Rural Major Collector (fed aid) 2.0 -- 0.9% 7 – Urban Collector -- 9.1 37%

8 – Urban Minor Arterial -- 15.1 79.9% 9 – Urban Principal Arterial -- 6.8 91.9%

Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a performance measure indicating the quality of the flow of traffic on a roadway. LOS is graded on a letter scale from A to F, with A being the highest level of service and F being the lowest. At LOS A, traffic flows freely, selecting desired travel speeds with ample passing opportunities. At LOS F, traffic flow is forced, the traffic volume has exceeded the capacity of the roadway to handle it and there are no passing opportunities. LOS D is generally considered to be the lowest tolerable level of service. For the purpose of assessing the County’s road system, LOS A-D were acceptable, while E and F were not. Level of service analysis was done for two-lane rural County Roads in 1997. The methodology used for the LOS analysis is shown in Appendix D. An expected result of the 1997 analysis indicates that 76 percent of the relatively low-volume rural collector system operates at LOS A. Table 20 shows the complete results of the 1997 analysis for the rural system, by functional class.

73

Table 20: 1997 LOS Analysis for the Rural System

Functional Class 2 – Rural Minor

Collector 3 – Rural Major

Collector 4 – Rural Major

Collector (fed aid) LOS A Miles 269.6 123.1 146.1

Percent of Total 77.3% 81% 69.3% LOS B Miles 11 23.1 41.7

Percent of Total 3.2% 15.2% 19.8% LOS C Miles 0.7 3.6 21

Percent of Total 0.2% 2.4% 10% LOS D Miles 0 1.1 1.8

Percent of Total 0 0.7% 0.9% LOS E Miles 0 0 0

Percent of Total 0% 0% 0% LOS F Miles 0 0 0

Percent of Total 0% 0% 0% No LOS Rating 67.6 0.8 0.02

Percent of Total 19.4% 0.5% 0% Approximately 643 of the 711 rural miles were operating at acceptable levels of LOS A, B, C, or D in 1997. LOS was not calculated for a number of minor collectors due to lack of ADT data or narrow road widths. These are presumably very low-volume roads and are not of concern for level of service problems. A 20-year level of service projection was also calculated to the year 2017. The 2017 analysis found that six rural collector segments totaling 2.9 miles were projected to be at LOS E in 2017. These segments were analyzed and incorporated into the project list. No segments were projected to be operating at LOS F in 2017. Bicycle And Pedestrian Facilities In Developed Areas Inside urban growth boundaries, bicycle and pedestrian facility needs are evaluated by the corresponding cities. Proposed urban bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements on County Roads are included in both the County’s and cities’ TSP Project Lists. For rural Lane County, the road system is the primary bicycle and pedestrian network. As such, the roads inventory with regard to roadway width is the primary resource to identify these facilities in rural areas. The adequacy of paved shoulders can be determined by looking at the total roadway width. The Needs Assessment described in Chapter 6.3 identified County Roads with inadequate widths. ADT and terrain are considered in determining whether road widths are adequate. Additional shoulder width for bicycle use would normally be considered if public involvement during the Capital Improvement Program process indicates that this is a priority. The Needs Assessment analysis only considers geometrics and technical operational characteristics of the road system. Under the Transportation Planning Rule, bicycle and pedestrian facilities serving local destinations within developed areas must also be evaluated. As such, land use characteristics must be integrated into the analysis. Lane County inventoried bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the 33 (of 35) unincorporated communities where local bicycling and walking destinations exist. Each community was mapped to show zoning and addresses, roads by functional class, and ADT. Using data available from the Regional Land Information Database (RLID), and the County Assessment and Taxation and Land Management Divisions, the locations and types of local destinations were also identified. Included as local bicycling and walking destinations were groceries, eateries, taverns, schools, banks, granges, community centers, offices, churches, parks, and large employment areas near residential areas. Roads within one-quarter to one-half mile were then identified for subsequent field investigations.

74

During the field investigations in each community, all roads within bicycling and walking distance to local destinations were listed and their widths were recorded. Guidelines in the 1995 Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan indicate that roads with traffic volumes of less than 1,000 vehicles a day are generally suitable as shared roadways (page 17). Therefore all roads with ADTs lower than 1,000 were excluded from recommendations. Eighteen county and eleven state road segments were identified as meriting wider shoulders and/or sidewalks to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel to local destinations in rural developed areas. The recommended state highway improvements are listed in the State Highway System section that concludes this chapter. The County segments were added to the TSP project list. The detailed inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities serving local destination needs is kept in the County Public Works Engineering Transportation Planning office. Bridges Bridges must be inspected every 24 months to comply with Federal Highway Administration requirements. The County normally retains an independent engineer to complete bridge inspections. The Bridge Inspection and Load Rating Report is updated with each round of inspections. This report is maintained in the County Public Works Engineering Division, Transportation Planning office. Bridges are load-rated based upon three levels of use for an estimated number of annual truck trips for up to five axle trucks (trucks with additional axles must be individually load rated): • The Inventory rating represents the maximum loads that can pass over the bridge a large number of

times without resulting in significant damage to the bridge. • The Operating rating represents the maximum loads the bridge can sustain on an occasional basis,

controlled by permits issued by the County. • The Recommended Posting represents the maximum loads that, in the opinion of the independent

engineer, should be allowed to cross the bridge without special approval by the County. In addition, bridges are rated in two ways to evaluate their condition: • The general condition of each bridge is also evaluated and rated from 0 (lowest) to 9 (new condition). • A sufficiency rating is calculated by the State Bridge Maintenance Section, based upon structural

adequacy and safety, functional obsolescence, and use. Bridges that have a general condition rating of 8-9 are considered to be in good condition. A rating of 5-7 is considered fair and requires monitoring for defects. A rating of 4 or less is considered poor, and deserving attention as soon as possible. Generally speaking, Lane County’s bridges are in good condition. As of the latest published data for inspections performed in 1998 and 1999, 91% of Lane County’s bridges scored a 7 or higher general condition rating. Ten bridges, all older, one-way covered bridges scored a 4 or lower. Bridges that are rated in poor condition are no longer in operation or are weight-restricted. In addition, these bridges receive immediate temporary repair and are scheduled for more permanent rehabilitation through the Capital Improvement Program. The geological record indicates that the region is susceptible to large-scale earthquakes. As such, bridges have been given special consideration for their ability to withstand future seismic activity. A CH2M Hill seismic rating report was commissioned by ODOT to look at the earthquake preparedness of the State’s bridge system. The report analyzed and rated bridges based on two primary factors—vulnerability and criticality. The vulnerability rating indicates bridge adequacy based on location and the composition of the bridge structure. The report assigns bridges to vulnerability groups based on particular bridge details that have performed poorly in seismic events (See Table 21). Criticality indicates the importance of the bridge in the transportation network. In other words, bridges located on important lifeline routes identified by ODOT are given a higher rating due to the critical function they serve for emergency services. By

75

combining the vulnerability and criticality ratings, agencies are able to prioritize and target seismic improvements and/or bridge replacements where it is needed most. Table 21 shows the vulnerability groups used by CH2M Hill and the breakdown of Lane County bridges in these groups.

Table 21: Lane County Bridges by Vulnerability Group Vulnerability Group Total Bridges Percent of Total

1A 8 3% 1B 87 29% 1C 98 33% 1D 0 0% 2A 3 1% 2B 37 13% 2C 62 21%

1A – Unstable bearings 1B – Stable bearing with inadequate anchorage and/or seat capacity 1C – Single span with inadequate anchorage and/or seat capacity 1D – In-span hinges with no other superstructure deficiencies 2A – Single column piers 2B – Three substructure deficiencies 2C – One or two substructure deficiencies

The groups beginning with 1 represent various superstructure deficiencies (bridge deck, beams, girders), and the groups beginning with 2 represent substructure deficiencies (columns, bentwalls). The substructure supports the superstructure above. The complete report “Seismic Vulnerability of Local Agency Bridges” by CH2M Hill was released in 1995 and is available for viewing from the Road Maintenance section of Lane County Public Works. State Highway System Capital improvements on state facilities are managed through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In many cases, City TSPs identify urban ODOT facility needs in their project list, which may then be promoted to the STIP. The Lane County TSP makes recommendations to the STIP for State facilities where the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is warranted near rural communities (See Recommendations for State Facilities Serving Rural, Local Bicycle-Pedestrian Needs in this section). However, project identification in terms of detailed operational and geometric analysis of the state highway system was not part of the initial TSP needs assessment. ODOT’s development of conditions reports (showing detailed safety, geometric, and operating conditions) for highway corridors in Lane County assists in the assessment of state facilities, but these are not complete. As additional conditions reports are finished and give a more clear understanding of state facilities in Lane County, deficient areas can be better identified and additional projects may be incorporated into the County project list for future STIP development. Until then, the TSP will not include an extensive assessment of rural State facility needs. Lane County continues to support current and future ODOT projects that are otherwise consistent with the TSP and applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Following is the status of conditions reports and planning activity summaries for major ODOT facilities in Lane County, followed by recommendations resulting from the County’s analysis of bicycle and pedestrian facilities serving rural, local travel needs (discussed earlier in this chapter) for State facilities. I-5 from Washington to California The I-5 State of the Interstate Report – 2000 is an assessment of the existing and forecast safety, geometric, and operating conditions on Interstate 5 through Oregon. The conditions report is a CD-ROM

76

that includes text, maps, and tables. Refinement plans have been developed for several noteworthy interchanges, including the Coburg, Beltline, and Creswell interchanges in Lane County. US 101 – Oregon Coast Highway Highway 101, a designated National Scenic Byway and All American Road, is regarded for its natural, historic, and scenic features, and the Pacific Highway Scenic Byway Plan was produced with the following objectives: enhancement, stewardship, awareness, interpretation, and access. Many features in Lane County have been identified for protection along the corridor, including bridges, parks, and other recreational attractions. The Lane County Board of Commissioners endorsed the completed Pacific Coast Scenic Byway Management Plan in November 1997. OR 58 From Eugene to US Highway 97 No corridor level planning has been completed for OR 58. A conditions report may be produced at some point in the future, but is yet to be programmed into ODOT’s budget. OR 126 from Florence to Eugene Lane Council of Governments is developing a Highway 126 West conditions report for ODOT. The CD-ROM format will be similar to the I-5 State of the Interstate Report, with safety, geometric, and operating conditions for the Florence-Eugene highway. Previously, ODOT commissioned Lane Council of Governments to complete a Phase I interim strategy for the Florence-Eugene corridor. The report was released in 1998 and outlines Corridor Strategy development, transportation goals, and management objectives. OR 126 from Eugene to Santiam Junction Lane Council of Governments studied the eastern corridor of Highway 126 for ODOT. The resulting Phase I Interim Corridor Strategy was published in May 1998. The Strategy summarizes the results of stakeholders’ meetings, a public outreach program, and professional review. Some of the more frequently cited concerns for the corridor include: • Conflicts between local traffic and the efficient and effective movement of goods and services

through the Corridor; • Increasing traffic and congestion, especially in Springfield and eastward towards Walterville; • Providing for a safe and efficient highway while protecting the Corridor’s scenic attributes and

important natural resources; • Safety and congestion problems associated with the large number of residential driveways that

directly access the highway; • Maintain the Corridor’s function as an important link in the State’s transportation system while

safeguarding the character and communities within the rural portions of the Corridor; • Ensuring safe transport of hazardous materials through the Corridor; • Unsafe conditions;

Created or exacerbated by driver behavior Associated with highway characteristics and maintenance For bicyclists, pedestrians, and bus riders

• Effects of growth in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, Deschutes County, and new rural residential development on traffic volumes in the Corridor;

• Inappropriate amount of through truck traffic given the design and character of the highway; • Widening the highway to accommodate increased traffic will attract more through traffic and

increase, not decrease, congestion.

77

Other Area Plans ODOT is working on a refinement plan for Highway 99, for the segment within the Junction City UGB, with the technical background work already complete. On ODOT’s list for future funded planning analysis are the following: • West 11th Expressway Plan—Beltline Intersection to Oak Hill; • OR 126/Main facility refinement plan; • Beltline capacity study; and • I-5 Refinement Plan--I-105 to OR 58. Recommendations for State Facilities Serving Rural, Local Bicycle-Pedestrian Needs As discussed earlier in the Needs Assessment Chapter, an analysis of facilities serving local destinations in unincorporated communities was completed in Summer 2002. This section provides recommendations that resulted from that evaluation for State facilities. (Needs for County facilities were incorporated into the TSP Project List). In addition to serving as throughways, state highway facilities provide the main access to many unincorporated communities and the stores, schools, and other local destinations serving their residents. While staff was primarily concerned with County Road facilities in completing the analysis, shoulder widths on state roads were also recorded. Roads with inadequate widths were noted. Roads with an ADT lower than 1,000 were then excluded. A list of 11 state road sections within ¼ to ½ mile of local destinations was compiled and is shown in the table below. The list was prioritized in terms of ADT and existing shoulder width. The list, which has also been distributed to ODOT personnel, is provided here as a recommendation for incorporation into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - the State equivalent of the County’s CIP. The County’s priority ranking and recommendations are based upon limited analysis and therefore could change after closer evaluation by ODOT personnel.

Table 22: State Highway Facilities Recommended for Bike-Pedestrian Improvements

State Road

Location Priority Ranking

ADT

Existing Shoulder

Recommendation*

Hwy 99 South Goshen 1 7000 1’, varies Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders Hwy 36 Cheshire 2 3800 0-2’ Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders Hwy 99 South Saginaw 3 4100 1’ Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders McKenzie Hwy Walterville 4 8000 3’ Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders McKenzie Hwy Leaburg 5 5100 3’ Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders McKenzie Hwy Nimrod 6 4100 3-4’ Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders Hwy 126 West Mapleton 7 6800 4’ Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders Hwy 101 Glenada 8 12400 4-8’ Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders McKenzie Hwy Vida 9 4600 4-6’ Widen to include 6’-8’ shoulders Territorial Hwy Crow 10 1800 0-1’ Widen to include 4’-6’ shoulders Territorial Hwy Lorane 11 1500 None Widen to include 4’-6’ shoulders

*Shoulder widening is recommended for both sides of the roadway. The 2002-2005 STIP already includes four of the sections listed above, for Goshen, Walterville, Leaburg, and Vida. For the Goshen area, Highway 99 South is identified for pavement preservation overlay (STIP key#12379). ODOT personnel indicate that in the initial publication of STIP projects, widening for bicycle/pedestrian facilities is typically not included in pavement preservation unless a legitimate safety issue has been identified. For Walterville, Leaburg, and Vida, the STIP identifies a pavement preservation project for the McKenzie Highway (STIP key #10808), including significant bicycle and pedestrian safety elements.

78

6.4. TSP PROJECT LIST OVERVIEW The project list following the Goals and Policies for this section consists of 136 capital improvement projects on County Roads. Seventy of the projects were derived from the Needs Assessment, which analyzed the structural and operational characteristics of the County’s roadways, or the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. The remaining projects have been identified in City TSPs. Projects from all of these sources have been incorporated into the County list. The project list shows a project number, name, and milepost limits of the proposed project. The source of the project is identified (e.g. Coburg TSP) and a general description is given as well as an estimated cost. Three versions of the project list are presented, with one sorted in alphabetical order, the second is sorted by project number, and the third is sorted by the source TSP. The precise cost and scope of each project is subject to change as it is promoted through public involvement and the CIP process. During the CIP process, projects are given a specific design-engineering concept in accordance with applicable design standards and environmental and topographical constraints. The concept is often modified based on public input and/or direction from the County Board of Commissioners before a final design is adopted. Goals And Policies: Financing And Recommended Improvements Goal 23: Maintain long-term County Road Fund stability by making annual budget adjustments

and following adopted priorities.

Policy 23-a: Adjust operating and capital expenditures through the annual budget process to maintain long term County Road Fund viability. Maintain a "prudent person" County Road Fund reserve. An appropriate “prudent person” reserve is generally considered to be 10% to 15% of gross receipts.

Policy 23-b: Identify and consider additional potential funding sources and strategies, such as a

local option gas tax or vehicle registration fee, in the event of loss or reduction of existing funding sources.

Goal 24: Use the County Road Fund effectively by following the priorities established in the 1991

Road Fund Financial Plan (updated 1995).

Policy 24-a: As a first priority (Core Program), maintain and preserve the County Road and bridge system.

Policy 24-b: As a first priority (Core Program), provide a safe roadside environment for the

traveling public on the County Road System. Policy 24-c: As a second priority (Enhanced Program) and as funding allows, improve the County

Road System to meet modern County design and safety standards. Policy 24-d: As a second priority (Enhanced Program) and as funding allows, share timber receipt

payments from the County Road Fund with cities for general street purposes and maintenance of City street systems.

Policy 24-e: As a third priority (Assistance Program) and as funding allows, provide economic

development road infrastructure financing to assist in economic development. Policy 24-f: As a third priority (Assistance Program) and as funding allows, share timber receipt

payments from the County Road Fund, through the CIP process, with cities and ODOT for City or ODOT roadway projects of mutual interest.

79

Goal 25: Maintain effective partnering relationships with cities and the Oregon Department

of Transportation (ODOT).

Policy 25-a: Review annually County-City road partnership agreements to maintain road fund viability and to assist cities in providing road services to urban residents in Lane County.

Policy 25-b: Evaluate existing road project funding agreements with incorporated cities, and make

necessary amendments to allocate an appropriate share of system development charges (SDCs) to the County to cover the cost of improvements on County Roads generated by new development.

Policy 25-c: Engage ODOT in continuing discussions regarding jurisdiction of roadways;

partnerships in funding programs; response to ODOT policy initiatives; and partnerships for a seamless service delivery system through sharing of resources, collocation of facilities, or consolidation of functions.

Alphabetical Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted in Alphabetical Order

Project Begin End EstimatedNumber Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

23 6th Avenue West City Limits to Oaklea Drive

0.000 0.330 0.330 JunctionCity

Bike-Ped, add sidewalks, restripe to add bike lanes and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #1

$50,000

22 10th Avenue West Rose Street South to Oaklea Dr

0.000 0.346 0.346 JunctionCity

Bike-Ped, add sidewalks, restripe to add bike lanes and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #2

$50,000

18 18th Avenue East & Deal St Modernization

Highway 99E to Dane Lane

0.000 0.509 0.509 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #4

$700,000

20 18th Avenue WestModernization

Hwy 99W to Oaklea Drive 0.000 0.854 0.854 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and possibly turn lanes at intersections such as Oaklea Dr and Rose Street., #3

$1,200,000

40 18th Avenue** Bertelson Rd to Willow Creek Rd

0.710 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, #303

$1,100,000

35 31st Street Hayden Bridge to U Street

0.542 0.905 0.850 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2-3 lane facility, #765

$1,300,000

111 Alvadore Rd Hwy 36 to Snyder Rd 0.000 6.100 6.100 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,800,000 112 Applegate Trail Hwy 36 to Territorial Hwy 0.000 2.584 2.584 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen

shoulders for bike use $1,600,000

101 ArrowheadStreet***

Irvington Drive to Barstow Ave

0.000 0.230 0.230 LC TSP Urban Standards $500,000

47 Aspen St* Centennial to West D 0.000 0.441 0.441 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 to 3 lane facility, joint project Spfd, #809

$750,000

103 Awbrey Lane Prairie Rd to Hwy 99W 0.000 1.340 1.340 LC TSP Rural Modernization $850,000 97 Beacon Drive East River Rd to Scenic Drive 0.000 0.749 0.749 LC TSP Urban Standards $1,500,000 98 Beacon Drive West River Rd to Prairie Rd 0.154 1.172 1.018 LC TSP Rural Modernization $650,000 46 Beaver Street

Arterial Hunsaker Drive to Wilkes

Drive 0,840 TransPlan

(Future List)

R.O.W. acquisition, general construction, new arterial #503

$1,700,000

71 Bennett Creek Rd North River Rd to UGB (bridge)

0.000 1.008 1.008 CottageGrove

Urban Standards - Widen, upgrade guardrail

$270,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

80

Alphabetical Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted in Alphabetical Order Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

51 BloombergConnector (McVay Hwy Realignment)*

McVay Highway to 30th Ave

0.400 TransPlan Modification of connection of McVay Hwy to 30th Ave, #297

$800,000

78 Blue River Drive Hwy 126 to Hwy 126 0.000 1.555 1.555 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,000,000 15 Bolton Hill Rd Territorial Hwy to UGB 0.000 1.171 1.171 Veneta Urban Standards. #B5 $1,900,000 11 Bolton Hill Rd At Territorial Hwy 0.000 0.000 0.000 Veneta Traffic Signal. Possible joint project

with Veneta, ODOT. #B15 $200,000

13 Bolton Road East Territorial Hwy to Huston Rd South

0.000 1.300 1.300 Veneta Bike-Ped Facilities, #D6 $320,000

77 Bridge Street McKenzie River & Overflow Structure

0.006 0.190 0.184 LC TSP Bridge Improvements $120,000

116 Briggs Hill Rd* MP 2.5 to Spencer Cr Rd 2.500 4.010 1.510 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,250,000 91 Camas Swale Rd Butte Rd to Weiss Rd 0.550 7.010 6.460 LC TSP Rural Modernization $4,000,000

124 Canary Rd Hwy 101 to Woahink Lake

0.000 0.686 0.686 LC TSP Rural Modernization $450,000

76 Cedar Flat Rd* Hwy 126 to East Cedar Flat Rd

0.000 0.500 0.500 LC TSP Realignment and widening for paved shoulders

$450,000

120 Central Rd Hwy 126 to Fleck Rd 0.000 1.920 1.920 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,200,000 125 Clear Lake Rd* Jensen Lane to Canary

Rd 1.670 4.233 2.563 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Addition of

paved shoulders $1,700,000

126 Cloverdale Rd Hwy 58 to Hendricks Rd (State Highway begins)

0.000 3.276 3.276 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,000,000

28 Coburg IndustrialWay**

Pearl Street Intersection Coburg Traffic Signal Installation and widening of approach to intersection, #B2

$0 (est. cost included in #28

above) 82 Coburg Rd Coburg Rd North to Linn

County Line 7.416 12.883 5.467 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,400,000

84 Coburg Rd North Coburg Rd to Linn County Line

0.000 4.115 4.115 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,600,000

43 Coburg Rd** Kinney Loop to Armitage Park

3.229 4.419 1.190 TransPlan Urban Standards. Reconstruct to three-lane facility to UGB, turn lane at park entrance, rural, #625

$2,400,000

70 Cottage Grove-Lorane Hwy

City Limit to Gowdyville Rd

0.830 1.174 0.344 CottageGrove

Bike-Ped Facilities $90,000

136 Cottage Grove-Lorane Rd

Hawley Cr Rd to Old Lorane Rd

10.879 12.654 1.775 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$1,110,000

45 County Farm Loop North to South Section 0.000 0.550 0.550 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3-lane facility, joint with Eugene, #631

$825,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

81

Alphabetical Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted in Alphabetical Order Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

42 County Farm Loop West to East Section 0.550 1.080 0.530 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, joint with Eugene, #632

$800,000

79 Crest Drive *** Lorane Hwy to Blanton Rd

0.000 0.873 0.873 LC TSP Urban Standards/Rural Modernization

$1,800,000

63 Dale Kuni Road Hwy 99 to UGB 0.000 1.430 1.430 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $900,000 7 Delight Valley

School Rd. North E. Saginaw Rd. to

Bachmann Ln. 0.000 0.282 0.282 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen

shoulders $175,000

58 Delta/BeltlineInterchange*

TransPlan Interim/safety improvements;replace/revise existing ramps; widen Delta Hwy bridge to 5 lanes, #638

$8,000,000

129 Dexter Rd Hwy 58 to Barbre Rd 0.000 1.500 1.500 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $950,000 86 Dillard Rd* Hwy 99 to ECM 0.000 4.016 4.016 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,600,000 32 Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver

Street 0.890 TransPlan

(Future List)

New frontage road with Willamette River Bridge #512

$4,000,000

110 Dorsey Lane Hwy 36 to High Pass Rd 0.000 1.542 1.542 LC TSP Rural Modernization $950,000 121 Ellmaker Rd Hwy 126 to Jeans Rd 0.000 1.114 1.114 LC TSP Rural Modernization $700,000 118 Fir Butte Rd Royal Ave to Clear Lake

Rd 0.000 2.706 2.706 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,700,000

75 Fish Hatchery Rd Hwy 58 to 1st Street 0.000 1.650 1.650 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Joint with Oakridge, #D2.

$1,000,000

72 Fish Hatchery Rd At Hwy 58 0.000 0.040 0.040 Oakridge Realignment of Fish Hatchery Rd at Hwy 58 approach. Joint with Oakridge, ODOT, #D7

$100,000

119 Fisher Rd Hwy 126 to Royal Avenue

0.000 1.200 1.200 LC TSP Rural Modernization $750,000

115 Fleck Rd Territorial Hwy to Central Rd

0.000 2.512 2.512 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,600,000

34 Fox Hollow Rd Donald Street to UGB 8.829 9.329 0.500 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, #245

$850,000

85 Franklin BoulevardEast***

I-5 Frontage to Twin Buttes Rd

0.000 1.121 1.121 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,300,000

59 Game Farm Rd North*

I-5 to Coburg Rd 0.419 1.690 1.271 TransPlan Urban Standards, Upgrade to 2-3 lane facility, Joint with Eugene,#654

$2,200,000

50 Game Farm Rd South

Game Farm Rd East to Harlow Rd

0.930 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility,#737

$2,100,000

95 Gowdyville Rd* MP 1.89 to Territorial Hwy

1.890 9.034 7.144 LC TSP Reconstruct and pave gravel road $3,100,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

82

Alphabetical Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted in Alphabetical Order Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

54 Green Hill Rd* Barger Drive to Airport Rd

3.820 5.820 2.000 TransPlan Rural widening and intersection modifications,#485

$2,000,000

10 Green Hill Rd* Barger Drive to W 11th 1.540 3.820 2.280 TransPlan Urban Standards, Upgrade to 2-3 lane facility, joint with Eugene, #454

$5,000,000

39 Green Hill Rd** North Boundary of Airport to Airport Rd

2.060 TransPlan Closing of existing road and realignment on east boundary of airport property, #486

$3,000,000

49 Grove Street Silver Lane to Howard 0.000 0.528 0.160 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane/Route #515 $0 113 Hall Rd* MP 4.56 to MP 5.88 4.560 5.880 1.320 LC TSP Pave gravel portion $990,000 62 Harvey Road At Hwy 99 0.000 0.100 0.100 Creswell Intersection improvements at Hwy

99, High Priority #9 $200,000

30 Hayden Bridge Rd (includes 23rd)

Yolanda to Marcola Rd 1.540 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, #747

$2,300,000

3 Heceta BeachRd***

Hwy 101 to Rhododendron Drive

0.000 1.885 1.885 Florence Bike-Ped Facilities. Listed as project #I-1

$150,000

24 High Pass Road Modernization

Hwy 99 to Oaklea Drive 0.000 0.859 0.859 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #5

$1,200,000

25 High Pass Road Modernization (Future)

Oaklea Drive to UGB 0.859 1.520 0.661 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #5

$900,000

73 High Prairie Rd 1st Street to UGB 0.000 0.947 0.947 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Intersection improvements and shoulders. Joint with Oakridge, Part of #D3 and #D6

$600,000

90 Hill Rd Old Mohawk Rd to Marcola Rd

0.000 4.572 4.572 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,900,000

137 Hills Cr Rd Jasper-Lowell Rd to Alden Lane

0.000 0.778 0.778 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen to standard for bike use

$490,000

38 Horn Lane N. Park Ave to River Road

0.000 0.928 0.928*** TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #521

$150,000

80 Howard Ave River Road to North Park 0.000 0.956 0.960 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #524

$0

106 Hulbert Lake Rd* Ferguson Rd to Benton County Line

0.000 2.390 2.390 LC TSP Reconstruction and drainage improvements

$1,500,000

48 HunsakerLane/Beaver Street*

River Rd to Division Ave 0.000 1.141 1.141 TransPlan Urban Standards-2 lane facility,#527 $2,200,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

83

Alphabetical Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted in Alphabetical Order Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

12 Huston Road South Hunter Rd to Perkins Rd 0.272 1.070 0.798 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities. See Veneta TSP #D6

$500,000

60 Irving Rd at NW Expressway*

Gainsborough Entrance to Prairie Rd

0.300 TransPlan Construct overpass over NW Expressway and railroad. Signalize access on north side,#530

$4,200,000

52 Irvington Drive* River Road to Prairie Rd 0.000 1.479 1.479 TransPlan Urban Standards,2-3 lane facility, #533

$4,000,000

55 Jasper RoadExtension*

Main Street to Jasper Rd 3.200 TransPlan Construct 4 lane arterial: phasing to be determined: improve RR X-ing at Jasper Rd; at grade interim improvement; grade separation long range improvement,#66

$10,400,000

130 Jasper-Lowell Rd Pengra Rd to MP 5.0 3.874 5.000 1.126 LC TSP Rural Modernization $700,000 132 Jasper-Lowell Rd Parkway Rd to Pengra

Rd 0.000 3.874 3.874 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen

shoulders for bike use $2,420,000

16 Jeans Rd Huston Rd North to Fawver Dr

1.185 3.000 1.815 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities See Veneta TSP #D6

$1,100,000

33 Lake Drive/N. Park Ave

Howard to Horn Lane*** 0.000 0.430 0.430 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #536

$170,000

69 Latham Rd Hwy 99 to London Rd 0.000 0.965 0.965 Cottage Grove

Bike-Ped Facilities $100,000

56 Laura St* Scots Glen Drive to Harlow Rd

0.000 0.273 0.273 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility

$550,000

138 Lost Creek Rd Hwy 58 to Parvin Rd 0.000 0.669 0.669 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$420,000

89 Marcola Rd* Parsons Cr Rd to Wendling Rd

10.430 11.700 1.270 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and overlay. Includes curb and sidewalk in Marcola.

$1,900,000

88 Marcola Rd* Wendling Rd to Johnson Rd

11.700 16.080 4.380 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and overlay

$3,000,000

83 McKenzie ViewDrive

Coburg Rd to Hill Rd 0.000 6.099 6.099 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,800,000

104 Meadowview RdWest

Hwy 99W to Alvadore Rd 0.000 2.952 2.952 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,850,000

128 Mill Rd* Hwy 58 to Wheeler Rd 0.000 0.249 0.249 LC TSP Realignment at Hwy 58 $400,000 105 Milliron Rd East* Hwy 99W to Prairie Rd 0.000 0.402 0.402 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and

overlay. Modernize two railroad crossings. Access to new corrections facility.

$950,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

84

Alphabetical Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted in Alphabetical Order Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

94 Mosby Cr Rd Currin Connector to Row River Connector #1

1.204 1.632 0.428 LC TSP Rural Modernization $250,000

2 Munsel Lake Rd*** Hwy 101 to North Fork Siuslaw Rd

0.000 2.090 2.090 Florence Bike-Ped Facilities. Listed as project #I-3

$150,000

36 N. Park Avenue Maxwell Rd to Horn Lane 0.268 1.298 1.030 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane/Route #539 $200,000 123 North Fork Siuslaw

Rd Hwy 126 to Munsel Lake Rd

0.000 0.849 0.849 LC TSP Rural Modernization $550,000

68 North River Rd Hwy 99 to Bennett Creek Rd

0.000 0.433 0.433 CottageGrove

Urban Standards $430,000

109 Oaklea Drive Hwy 99W to 18th Ave West

0.000 1.512 1.512 LC TSP Rural Modernization $950,000

21 Oaklea DriveModernization

18th Ave West to High Pass Rd

1.512 2.534 1.022 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #7

$1,400,000

8 Parsons Creek Rd. Marcola Rd. to Pioch Ln. 0.000 0.899 0.899 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$560,000

29 Pearl Street** Coburg Rd to Miller St 0.025 0.244 0.219 Coburg Urban Standards - Two-lane facility with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes,#B1

$700,000

28 Pearl Street** Miller St to I-5 0.244 0.640 0.396 Coburg Urban Standards - Four-lane facility with median treatments, curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, #B1

$750,000

14 Perkins Rd City Limits to Central Rd 0.420 2.822 2.402 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities See Veneta TSP #D6

$1,500,000

17 Pitney Lane North UGB to High Pass Road 1.370 1.509 0.139 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes, #11

$200,000

107 Prairie Rd NW Expressway to Hwy 99 (Prairie Rd Connector)

2.221 7.850 5.629 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,500,000

81 Prairie Rd*** Maxwell Rd to Beltline 0.118 0.690 0.572 LC TSP Complete urban Standards $350,000 19 Prairie Road

Modernization Highway 99 to High Pass Road

8.030 9.250 1.220 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #8

$1,700,000

26 Prairie RoadWidening (Future)

UGB to End (near Hwy 99)

7.300 8.030 0.730 JunctionCity

Rural Modernization. Widen shoulders. Discussion of prison siting, #9

$1,000,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

85

Alphabetical Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted in Alphabetical Order Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

31 Prairie Road** Carol Lane to Irvington Drive

1.589 1.939 0.350 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3 lane-lane facility, #472

$825,000

1 RhododendronDrive***

City Limits to Heceta Beach Rd

3.440 5.112 1.672 Florence Urban Standards-Curbs, Sidewalks, bike lanes. Part of project G-4 and bike project I-2..

$1,800,000

127 Ridgeway Rd Hwy 58 to MP 1.0 0.000 1.000 1.000 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $620,000 102 River Loop #1*** River Rd to Dalewood

Street 0.000 0.244 0.244 LC TSP Urban Standards $500,000

100 River Loop #2*** River Rd to Burlwood Street

0.000 0.990 0.990 LC TSP Urban Standards $2,000,000

57 River Rd* Beacon Dr to Carthage 7.366 7.747 0.381 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility, #545

$1,100,000

27 River RoadModernization*

Hwy 99 to vicinity of Strome Ln

0.000 0.694 0.694 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #10

$970,000

92 Row River Rd Sharps Cr Rd to Brice Cr Rd

16.230 19.778 3.548 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,200,000

67 Row River Rd UGB to Row River 1.042 2.088 1.046 Cottage Grove

Urban Standards - Three-lane facility with bike lanes

$900,000

53 Royal Avenue* Terry Street to Greenhill Avenue

2.267 3.267 1.000 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility, joint with Eugene, #481

$2,200,000

96 Scenic Drive *** River Loop #2 to Beacon Drive East

0.000 0.765 0.765 LC TSP Urban Standards $1,600,000

93 Sears Rd MP 0.62 to Saginaw Rd East

0.620 3.240 2.620 LC TSP Strengthen pavement structure $1,100,000

87 Seavey Loop *** Hwy 58 to Franklin Boulevard East

0.000 3.791 3.791 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $2,400,000

133 South Jetty Rd Hwy 101 to BLM Rd 0.000 0.620 0.620 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$390,000

66 South River Rd** Hwy 99 to Jason Lee (City Limit)

0.000 0.316 0.316 CottageGrove

Urban Standards & realign at Hwy 99

$660,000

117 Spencer Cr Rd MP 0.5 to Pine Grove Rd 0.500 3.285 2.785 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,700,000 99 Spring Creek Drive

*** River Rd to Scenic Drive 0.000 0.527 0.527 LC TSP Urban Standards $1,100,000

122 Stagecoach Rd* Richardson Rd to MP .58 0.000 0.580 0.580 LC TSP Slope stabilization $770,000 134 Suttle Rd Hwy 126 to Territorial

Hwy 0.000 3.802 3.802 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen

shoulders for bike use $2,380,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

86

Alphabetical Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted in Alphabetical Order Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

65 Sweet Lane Hwy 99 to Talemena Dr 0.000 0.718 0.718 CottageGrove

Urban Standards $570,000

64 Thornton Lane*** Row River Rd to ECM (Gate)

0.000 0.518 0.518 CottageGrove

Urban Standards - Add curb, gutter, sidewalks

$220,000

6 Tillicum Ave. Hwy. 58 to Tenas Ln. 0.000 0.263 0.263 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Sidewalks and/or widen shoulders

$200,000

4 Vaughn Rd. Noti Loop Rd. to Glaze Rd.

0.000 0.953 0.953 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$600,000

5 Vaughn Rd. Canaday Rd. to Territorial Hwy.

7.954 9.906 1.952 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$1,220,000

41 W 11th Avenue Greenhill Road to Danebo

1.510 TransPlan Urban Standards, 5 lane facility, joint with Eugene, ODOT, #333

$4,500,000

61 W. Hilliard Ln. River Road to North Park 0.000 0.840 1.090 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #518

$0

114 Warthen Rd Territorial Hwy to Knight Rd

0.000 4.008 4.008 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen shoulders for bike use

$2,500,000

135 Wendling Rd Marcola Rd to Paschelke Rd

0.000 1.599 1.599 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$1,000,000

131 West Boundary Rd* End of Pavement to MP 6.4

1.700 6.400 4.700 LC TSP Pave gravel road $2,750,000

74 Westfir-OakridgeRd

Norquist Lane to High Prairie Rd

5.707 6.065 0.358 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Joint with Oakridge, #D3.

$750,000

44 Wilkes Drive River Road to River Loop #1

0.000 0.932 0.932 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3-lane facility, #554

$1,400,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

87

Project Number Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted by Project Number Project Begin End EstimatedNumber Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

1 RhododendronDrive***

City Limits to Heceta Beach Rd

3.440 5.112 1.672 Florence Urban Standards-Curbs, Sidewalks, bike lanes. Part of project G-4 and bike project I-2..

$1,800,000

2 Munsel Lake Rd*** Hwy 101 to North Fork Siuslaw Rd

0.000 2.090 2.090 Florence Bike-Ped Facilities. Listed as project #I-3

$150,000

3 Heceta BeachRd***

Hwy 101 to Rhododendron Drive

0.000 1.885 1.885 Florence Bike-Ped Facilities. Listed as project #I-1

$150,000

4 Vaughn Rd. Noti Loop Rd. to Glaze Rd.

0.000 0.953 0.953 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$600,000

5 Vaughn Rd. Canaday Rd. to Territorial Hwy.

7.954 9.906 1.952 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$1,220,000

6 Tillicum Ave. Hwy. 58 to Tenas Ln. 0.000 0.263 0.263 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Sidewalks and/or widen shoulders

$200,000

7 Delight ValleySchool Rd. North

E. Saginaw Rd. to Bachmann Ln.

0.000 0.282 0.282 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$175,000

8 Parsons Creek Rd. Marcola Rd. to Pioch Ln. 0.000 0.899 0.899 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$560,000

10 Green Hill Rd* Barger Drive to W 11th 1.540 3.820 2.280 TransPlan Urban Standards, Upgrade to 2-3 lane facility, joint with Eugene, #454

$5,000,000

11 Bolton Hill Rd At Territorial Hwy 0.000 0.000 0.000 Veneta Traffic Signal. Possible joint project with Veneta, ODOT. #B15

$200,000

12 Huston Road South Hunter Rd to Perkins Rd 0.272 1.070 0.798 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities. See Veneta TSP #D6

$500,000

13 Bolton Road East Territorial Hwy to Huston Rd South

0.000 1.300 1.300 Veneta Bike-Ped Facilities, #D6 $320,000

14 Perkins Rd City Limits to Central Rd 0.420 2.822 2.402 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities See Veneta TSP #D6

$1,500,000

15 Bolton Hill Rd Territorial Hwy to UGB 0.000 1.171 1.171 Veneta Urban Standards. #B5 $1,900,000 16 Jeans Rd Huston Rd North to

Fawver Dr 1.185 3.000 1.815 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities See Veneta TSP

#D6 $1,100,000

17 Pitney Lane North UGB to High Pass Road 1.370 1.509 0.139 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes, #11

$200,000

18 18th Avenue East & Deal St Modernization

Highway 99E to Dane Lane

0.000 0.509 0.509 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #4

$700,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

88

Project Number Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted by Project Number Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Description Cost Source

19 Prairie RoadModernization

Highway 99 to High Pass Road

8.030 9.250 1.220 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #8

$1,700,000

20 18th Avenue WestModernization

Hwy 99W to Oaklea Drive 0.000 0.854 0.854 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and possibly turn lanes at intersections such as Oaklea Dr and Rose Street., #3

$1,200,000

21 Oaklea DriveModernization

18th Ave West to High Pass Rd

1.512 2.534 1.022 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #7

$1,400,000

22 10th Avenue West Rose Street South to Oaklea Dr

0.000 0.346 0.346 JunctionCity

Bike-Ped, add sidewalks, restripe to add bike lanes and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #2

$50,000

23 6th Avenue West City Limits to Oaklea Drive

0.000 0.330 0.330 JunctionCity

Bike-Ped, add sidewalks, restripe to add bike lanes and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #1

$50,000

24 High Pass Road Modernization

Hwy 99 to Oaklea Drive 0.000 0.859 0.859 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #5

$1,200,000

25 High Pass Road Modernization (Future)

Oaklea Drive to UGB 0.859 1.520 0.661 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #5

$900,000

26 Prairie RoadWidening (Future)

UGB to End (near Hwy 99)

7.300 8.030 0.730 JunctionCity

Rural Modernization. Widen shoulders. Discussion of prison siting, #9

$1,000,000

27 River RoadModernization*

Hwy 99 to vicinity of Strome Ln

0.000 0.694 0.694 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #10

$970,000

28 Coburg IndustrialWay**

Pearl Street Intersection Coburg Traffic Signal Installation and widening of approach to intersection, #B2

$0 (est. cost included in #28

above) 28 Pearl Street** Miller St to I-5 0.244 0.640 0.396 Coburg Urban Standards - Four-lane facility

with median treatments, curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, #B1

$750,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

89

Project Number Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted by Project Number Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

29 Pearl Street** Coburg Rd to Miller St 0.025 0.244 0.219 Coburg Urban Standards - Two-lane facility with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes,#B1

$700,000

30 Hayden Bridge Rd (includes 23rd)

Yolanda to Marcola Rd 1.540 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, #747

$2,300,000

31 Prairie Road** Carol Lane to Irvington Drive

1.589 1.939 0.350 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3 lane-lane facility, #472

$825,000

32 Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver Street

0.890 TransPlan(Future

List)

New frontage road with Willamette River Bridge #512

$4,000,000

33 Lake Drive/N. Park Ave

Howard to Horn Lane*** 0.000 0.430 0.430 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #536

$170,000

34 Fox Hollow Rd Donald Street to UGB 8.829 9.329 0.500 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, #245

$850,000

35 31st Street Hayden Bridge to U Street

0.542 0.905 0.850 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2-3 lane facility, #765

$1,300,000

36 N. Park Avenue Maxwell Rd to Horn Lane 0.268 1.298 1.030 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane/Route #539 $200,000 38 Horn Lane N. Park Ave to River

Road 0.000 0.928 0.928*** TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route,

#521 $150,000

39 Green Hill Rd** North Boundary of Airport to Airport Rd

2.060 TransPlan Closing of existing road and realignment on east boundary of airport property, #486

$3,000,000

40 18th Avenue** Bertelson Rd to Willow Creek Rd

0.710 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, #303

$1,100,000

41 W 11th Avenue Greenhill Road to Danebo

1.510 TransPlan Urban Standards, 5 lane facility, joint with Eugene, ODOT, #333

$4,500,000

42 County Farm Loop West to East Section 0.550 1.080 0.530 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, joint with Eugene, #632

$800,000

43 Coburg Rd** Kinney Loop to Armitage Park

3.229 4.419 1.190 TransPlan Urban Standards. Reconstruct to three-lane facility to UGB, turn lane at park entrance, rural, #625

$2,400,000

44 Wilkes Drive River Road to River Loop #1

0.000 0.932 0.932 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3-lane facility, #554

$1,400,000

45 County Farm Loop North to South Section 0.000 0.550 0.550 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3-lane facility, joint with Eugene, #631

$825,000

46 Beaver StreetArterial

Hunsaker Drive to Wilkes Drive

0,840 TransPlan(Future

List)

R.O.W. acquisition, general construction, new arterial #503

$1,700,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

90

Project Number Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted by Project Number Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

47 Aspen St* Centennial to West D 0.000 0.441 0.441 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 to 3 lane facility, joint project Spfd, #809

$750,000

48 HunsakerLane/Beaver Street*

River Rd to Division Ave 0.000 1.141 1.141 TransPlan Urban Standards-2 lane facility,#527 $2,200,000

49 Grove Street Silver Lane to Howard 0.000 0.528 0.160 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane/Route #515 $0 50 Game Farm Rd

South Game Farm Rd East to Harlow Rd

0.930 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility,#737

$2,100,000

51 BloombergConnector (McVay Hwy Realignment)*

McVay Highway to 30th Ave

0.400 TransPlan Modification of connection of McVay Hwy to 30th Ave, #297

$800,000

52 Irvington Drive* River Road to Prairie Rd 0.000 1.479 1.479 TransPlan Urban Standards,2-3 lane facility, #533

$4,000,000

53 Royal Avenue* Terry Street to Greenhill Avenue

2.267 3.267 1.000 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility, joint with Eugene, #481

$2,200,000

54 Green Hill Rd* Barger Drive to Airport Rd

3.820 5.820 2.000 TransPlan Rural widening and intersection modifications,#485

$2,000,000

55 Jasper RoadExtension*

Main Street to Jasper Rd 3.200 TransPlan Construct 4 lane arterial: phasing to be determined: improve RR X-ing at Jasper Rd; at grade interim improvement; grade separation long range improvement,#66

$10,400,000

56 Laura St* Scots Glen Drive to Harlow Rd

0.000 0.273 0.273 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility

$550,000

57 River Rd* Beacon Dr to Carthage 7.366 7.747 0.381 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility, #545

$1,100,000

58 Delta/BeltlineInterchange*

TransPlan Interim/safety improvements;replace/revise existing ramps; widen Delta Hwy bridge to 5 lanes, #638

$8,000,000

59 Game Farm Rd North*

I-5 to Coburg Rd 0.419 1.690 1.271 TransPlan Urban Standards, Upgrade to 2-3 lane facility, Joint with Eugene,#654

$2,200,000

60 Irving Rd at NW Expressway*

Gainsborough Entrance to Prairie Rd

0.300 TransPlan Construct overpass over NW Expressway and railroad. Signalize access on north side,#530

$4,200,000

61 W. Hilliard Ln. River Road to North Park 0.000 0.840 1.090 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #518

$0

62 Harvey Road At Hwy 99 0.000 0.100 0.100 Creswell Intersection improvements at Hwy 99, High Priority #9

$200,000

63 Dale Kuni Road Hwy 99 to UGB 0.000 1.430 1.430 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $900,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

91

Project Number Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted by Project Number Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

64 Thornton Lane*** Row River Rd to ECM (Gate)

0.000 0.518 0.518 CottageGrove

Urban Standards - Add curb, gutter, sidewalks

$220,000

65 Sweet Lane Hwy 99 to Talemena Dr 0.000 0.718 0.718 CottageGrove

Urban Standards $570,000

66 South River Rd** Hwy 99 to Jason Lee (City Limit)

0.000 0.316 0.316 CottageGrove

Urban Standards & realign at Hwy 99

$660,000

67 Row River Rd UGB to Row River 1.042 2.088 1.046 Cottage Grove

Urban Standards - Three-lane facility with bike lanes

$900,000

68 North River Rd Hwy 99 to Bennett Creek Rd

0.000 0.433 0.433 CottageGrove

Urban Standards $430,000

69 Latham Rd Hwy 99 to London Rd 0.000 0.965 0.965 Cottage Grove

Bike-Ped Facilities $100,000

70 Cottage Grove-Lorane Hwy

City Limit to Gowdyville Rd

0.830 1.174 0.344 CottageGrove

Bike-Ped Facilities $90,000

71 Bennett Creek Rd North River Rd to UGB (bridge)

0.000 1.008 1.008 CottageGrove

Urban Standards - Widen, upgrade guardrail

$270,000

72 Fish Hatchery Rd At Hwy 58 0.000 0.040 0.040 Oakridge Realignment of Fish Hatchery Rd at Hwy 58 approach. Joint with Oakridge, ODOT, #D7

$100,000

73 High Prairie Rd 1st Street to UGB 0.000 0.947 0.947 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Intersection improvements and shoulders. Joint with Oakridge, Part of #D3 and #D6

$600,000

74 Westfir-OakridgeRd

Norquist Lane to High Prairie Rd

5.707 6.065 0.358 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Joint with Oakridge, #D3.

$750,000

75 Fish Hatchery Rd Hwy 58 to 1st Street 0.000 1.650 1.650 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Joint with Oakridge, #D2.

$1,000,000

76 Cedar Flat Rd* Hwy 126 to East Cedar Flat Rd

0.000 0.500 0.500 LC TSP Realignment and widening for paved shoulders

$450,000

77 Bridge Street McKenzie River & Overflow Structure

0.006 0.190 0.184 LC TSP Bridge Improvements $120,000

78 Blue River Drive Hwy 126 to Hwy 126 0.000 1.555 1.555 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,000,000 79 Crest Drive *** Lorane Hwy to Blanton

Rd 0.000 0.873 0.873 LC TSP Urban Standards/Rural

Modernization $1,800,000

80 Howard Ave River Road to North Park 0.000 0.956 0.960 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #524

$0

81 Prairie Rd*** Maxwell Rd to Beltline 0.118 0.690 0.572 LC TSP Complete urban Standards $350,000 82 Coburg Rd Coburg Rd North to Linn

County Line 7.416 12.883 5.467 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,400,000

83 McKenzie View Dr. Coburg Rd to Hill Rd 0.000 6.099 6.099 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,800,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

92

Project Number Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted by Project Number Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

84 Coburg Rd North Coburg Rd to Linn County Line

0.000 4.115 4.115 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,600,000

85 Franklin BoulevardEast***

I-5 Frontage to Twin Buttes Rd

0.000 1.121 1.121 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,300,000

86 Dillard Rd* Hwy 99 to ECM 0.000 4.016 4.016 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,600,000 87 Seavey Loop *** Hwy 58 to Franklin

Boulevard East 0.000 3.791 3.791 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $2,400,000

88 Marcola Rd* Wendling Rd to Johnson Rd

11.700 16.080 4.380 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and overlay

$3,000,000

89 Marcola Rd* Parsons Cr Rd to Wendling Rd

10.430 11.700 1.270 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and overlay. Includes curb and sidewalk in Marcola.

$1,900,000

90 Hill Rd Old Mohawk Rd to Marcola Rd

0.000 4.572 4.572 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,900,000

91 Camas Swale Rd Butte Rd to Weiss Rd 0.550 7.010 6.460 LC TSP Rural Modernization $4,000,000 92 Row River Rd Sharps Cr Rd to Brice Cr

Rd 16.230 19.778 3.548 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,200,000

93 Sears Rd MP 0.62 to Saginaw Rd East

0.620 3.240 2.620 LC TSP Strengthen pavement structure $1,100,000

94 Mosby Cr Rd Currin Connector to Row River Connector #1

1.204 1.632 0.428 LC TSP Rural Modernization $250,000

95 Gowdyville Rd* MP 1.89 to Territorial Hwy

1.890 9.034 7.144 LC TSP Reconstruct and pave gravel road $3,100,000

96 Scenic Drive *** River Loop #2 to Beacon Drive East

0.000 0.765 0.765 LC TSP Urban Standards $1,600,000

97 Beacon Drive East River Rd to Scenic Drive 0.000 0.749 0.749 LC TSP Urban Standards $1,500,000 98 Beacon Drive West River Rd to Prairie Rd 0.154 1.172 1.018 LC TSP Rural Modernization $650,00099 Spring Creek Drive

*** River Rd to Scenic Drive 0.000 0.527 0.527 LC TSP Urban Standards $1,100,000

100 River Loop #2*** River Rd to Burlwood Street

0.000 0.990 0.990 LC TSP Urban Standards $2,000,000

101 ArrowheadStreet***

Irvington Drive to Barstow Ave

0.000 0.230 0.230 LC TSP Urban Standards $500,000

102 River Loop #1*** River Rd to Dalewood Street

0.000 $500,000 0.244 0.244 LC TSP Urban Standards

103 Awbrey Lane Prairie Rd to Hwy 99W 0.000 1.340 1.340 $850,000 LC TSP Rural Modernization 104 Meadowview Rd

West Hwy 99W to Alvadore Rd 0.000 2.952 2.952 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,850,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

93

Project Number Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted by Project Number Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

105 0.000 0.402 Milliron Rd East* Hwy 99W to Prairie Rd 0.402 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and overlay. Modernize two railroad crossings. Access to new corrections facility.

$950,000

106 Hulbert Lake Rd* Ferguson Rd to Benton County Line

0.000 2.390 2.390 LC TSP Reconstruction and drainage improvements

$1,500,000

107 Prairie Rd NW Expressway to Hwy 99 (Prairie Rd Connector)

2.221 7.850 5.629 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,500,000

109 Oaklea Drive Hwy 99W to 18th Ave West

0.000 1.512 1.512 LC TSP Rural Modernization $950,000

110 Dorsey Lane Hwy 36 to High Pass Rd 0.000 1.542 1.542 LC TSP Rural Modernization $950,000 111 Alvadore Rd Hwy 36 to Snyder Rd 0.000 6.100 6.100 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,800,000 112 Applegate Trail Hwy 36 to Territorial Hwy 0.000 2.584 2.584 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen

shoulders for bike use $1,600,000

113 Hall Rd* MP 4.56 to MP 5.88 4.560 5.880 1.320 LC TSP Pave gravel portion $990,000 114 Warthen Rd Territorial Hwy to Knight

Rd 0.000 4.008 4.008 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen

shoulders for bike use $2,500,000

115 Fleck Rd Territorial Hwy to Central Rd

0.000 2.512 2.512 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,600,000

116 Briggs Hill Rd* MP 2.5 to Spencer Cr Rd 2.500 4.010 1.510 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,250,000 117 Spencer Cr Rd MP 0.5 to Pine Grove Rd 0.500 3.285 2.785 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,700,000 118 Fir Butte Rd Royal Ave to Clear Lake

Rd 0.000 2.706 2.706 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,700,000

119 Fisher Rd Hwy 126 to Royal Avenue

0.000 1.200 $750,000 1.200 LC TSP Rural Modernization

120 Central Rd Hwy 126 to Fleck Rd 0.000 1.920 1.920 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,200,000 121 Ellmaker Rd Hwy 126 to Jeans Rd 0.000 1.114 1.114 LC TSP Rural Modernization $700,000 122 Stagecoach Rd* Richardson Rd to MP

0.58 0.000 0.580 0.580 LC TSP Slope stabilization $770,000

123 North Fork Siuslaw Rd

Hwy 126 to Munsel Lake Rd

0.000 0.849 0.849 LC TSP Rural Modernization $550,000

124 Canary Rd Hwy 101 to Woahink Lake

0.000 0.686 0.686 LC TSP Rural Modernization $450,000

125 Clear Lake Rd* Jensen Lane to Canary Rd

1.670 4.233 2.563 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Addition of paved shoulders

$1,700,000

126 Cloverdale Rd Hwy 58 to Hendricks Rd (State Highway begins)

0.000 3.276 3.276 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,000,000

127 Ridgeway Rd Hwy 58 to MP 1.0 0.000 1.000 1.000 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $620,000 128 Mill Rd* Hwy 58 to Wheeler Rd 0.000 0.249 0.249 LC TSP Realignment at Hwy 58 $400,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

94

Project Number Sort – Project List

Projects on Lane County Roads – 20-Year Project List Sorted by Project Number Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

129 Dexter Rd Hwy 58 to Barbre Rd 0.000 1.500 1.500 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $950,000 130 Jasper-Lowell Rd Pengra Rd to MP 5.0 3.874 5.000 1.126 LC TSP Rural Modernization $700,000 131 West Boundary Rd* End of Pavement to MP

6.4 1.700 6.400 4.700 LC TSP Pave gravel road $2,750,000

132 Jasper-Lowell Rd Parkway Rd to Pengra Rd

0.000 3.874 3.874 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$2,420,000

133 South Jetty Rd Hwy 101 to BLM Rd 0.000 0.620 0.620 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$390,000

134 Suttle Rd Hwy 126 to Territorial Hwy

0.000 3.802 3.802 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$2,380,000

135 Wendling Rd Marcola Rd to Paschelke Rd

0.000 1.599 1.599 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$1,000,000

136 12.654 Cottage Grove-Lorane Rd

Hawley Cr Rd to Old Lorane Rd

10.879 1.775 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$1,110,000

137 Hills Cr Rd Jasper-Lowell Rd to Alden Lane

0.000 0.778 0.778 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen to standard for bike use

$490,000

138 Lost Creek Rd Hwy 58 to Parvin Rd 0.000 0.669 0.669 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$420,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

95

Source TSP Sort – Project List

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Estimated Begin EndNumber Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

County Projects Identified in Lane County TSP

111 Alvadore Rd Hwy 36 to Snyder Rd 0.000 6.100 6.100 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,800,000 112 Applegate Trail Hwy 36 to Territorial Hwy 0.000 2.584 2.584 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen

shoulders for bike use $1,600,000

101 ArrowheadStreet***

Irvington Drive to Barstow Ave

0.000 0.230 0.230 LC TSP Urban Standards $500,000

103 Awbrey Lane Prairie Rd to Hwy 99W 0.000 1.340 1.340 LC TSP Rural Modernization $850,000 97 Beacon Drive East River Rd to Scenic Drive 0.000 0.749 0.749 LC TSP Urban Standards $1,500,000 98 Beacon Drive West River Rd to Prairie Rd 0.154 1.172 1.018 LC TSP Rural Modernization $650,000 78 Blue River Drive Hwy 126 to Hwy 126 0.000 1.555 1.555 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,000,000 77 Bridge Street McKenzie River &

Overflow Structure 0.006 LC TSP0.190 0.184 Bridge Improvements $120,000

116 Briggs Hill Rd* MP 2.5 to Spencer Cr Rd 2.500 4.010 1.510 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,250,000 91 Camas Swale Rd Butte Rd to Weiss Rd 0.550 7.010 6.460 LC TSP Rural Modernization $4,000,000

124 Canary Rd Hwy 101 to Woahink Lake

0.000 0.686 0.686 LC TSP Rural Modernization $450,000

76 Cedar Flat Rd* Hwy 126 to East Cedar Flat Rd

0.000 0.500 0.500 LC TSP Realignment and widening for paved shoulders

$450,000

120 Central Rd Hwy 126 to Fleck Rd 0.000 1.920 1.920 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,200,000 125 Clear Lake Rd* Jensen Lane to Canary

Rd 1.670 4.233 2.563 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Addition of

paved shoulders $1,700,000

126 Cloverdale Rd Hwy 58 to Hendricks Rd (State Highway begins)

0.000 3.276 3.276 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,000,000

82 Coburg Rd Coburg Rd North to Linn County Line

7.416 12.883 5.467 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,400,000

84 Coburg Rd North Coburg Rd to Linn County Line

0.000 4.115 4.115 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,600,000

136 Cottage Grove-Lorane Rd

Hawley Cr Rd to Old Lorane Rd

10.879 12.654 1.775 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$1,110,000

79 Crest Drive *** Lorane Hwy to Blanton Rd

0.000 0.873 0.873 LC TSP Urban Standards/Rural Modernization

$1,800,000

63 Dale Kuni Road Hwy 99 to UGB 0.000 1.430 1.430 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $900,000 7 Delight Valley

School Rd. North E. Saginaw Rd. to

Bachmann Ln. 0.000 0.282 0.282 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen

shoulders $175,000

129 Dexter Rd Hwy 58 to Barbre Rd 0.000 1.500 1.500 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $950,000 86 Dillard Rd* Hwy 99 to ECM 0.000 4.016 4.016 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,600,000

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 96

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

Source TSP Sort – Project List

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 97

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

110 LC TSP Dorsey Lane Hwy 36 to High Pass Rd 0.000 1.542 1.542 Rural Modernization $950,000 121 Ellmaker Rd Hwy 126 to Jeans Rd 0.000 1.114 1.114 LC TSP Rural Modernization $700,000 118 Fir Butte Rd Royal Ave to Clear Lake

Rd 0.000 2.706 2.706 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,700,000

119 Fisher Rd Hwy 126 to Royal Avenue

0.000 1.200 1.200 LC TSP Rural Modernization $750,000

115 Fleck Rd Territorial Hwy to Central Rd

0.000 2.512 2.512 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,600,000

85 LC TSP Franklin BoulevardEast***

I-5 Frontage to Twin Buttes Rd

0.000 1.121 1.121 Rural Modernization $2,300,000

95 Gowdyville Rd* MP 1.89 to Territorial Hwy

1.890 9.034 7.144 LC TSP Reconstruct and pave gravel road $3,100,000

113 Hall Rd* MP 4.56 to MP 5.88 4.560 5.880 1.320 LC TSP Pave gravel portion $990,000 90 Hill Rd Old Mohawk Rd to

Marcola Rd 0.000 4.572 4.572 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,900,000

137 Hills Cr Rd Jasper-Lowell Rd to Alden Lane

0.000 0.778 0.778 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen to standard for bike use

$490,000

106 Hulbert Lake Rd* Ferguson Rd to Benton County Line

0.000 2.390 2.390 LC TSP Reconstruction and drainage improvements

$1,500,000

12 Huston Road South Hunter Rd to Perkins Rd 0.272 1.070 0.798 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities. See Veneta TSP #D6

$500,000

130 Jasper-Lowell Rd Pengra Rd to MP 5.0 3.874 5.000 1.126 LC TSP Rural Modernization $700,000 132 Jasper-Lowell Rd Parkway Rd to Pengra

Rd 0.000 3.874 3.874 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen

shoulders for bike use $2,420,000

16 Jeans Rd Huston Rd North to Fawver Dr

1.185 3.000 1.815 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities See Veneta TSP #D6

$1,100,000

138 Lost Creek Rd Hwy 58 to Parvin Rd 0.000 0.669 0.669 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$420,000

89 Marcola Rd* Parsons Cr Rd to Wendling Rd

10.430 11.700 1.270 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and overlay. Includes curb and sidewalk in Marcola.

$1,900,000

88 Marcola Rd* Wendling Rd to Johnson Rd

11.700 16.080 4.380 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and overlay

$3,000,000

83 McKenzie View Drive

LC TSP Coburg Rd to Hill Rd 0.000 6.099 6.099 Rural Modernization $3,800,000

104 Meadowview Rd W Hwy 99W to Alvadore Rd 0.000 2.952 2.952 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,850,000 128 Mill Rd* Hwy 58 to Wheeler Rd 0.000 0.249 0.249 LC TSP Realignment at Hwy 58 $400,000

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

Source TSP Sort – Project List

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 98

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

105 Milliron Rd East* Hwy 99W to Prairie Rd 0.000 0.402 0.402 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen and overlay. Modernize two railroad crossings. Access to new corrections facility.

$950,000

94 Mosby Cr Rd Currin Connector to Row River Connector #1

1.204 1.632 0.428 LC TSP Rural Modernization $250,000

123 North Fork Siuslaw Rd

Hwy 126 to Munsel Lake Rd

0.000 0.849 0.849 LC TSP Rural Modernization $550,000

109 Oaklea Drive Hwy 99W to 18th Ave West

0.000 1.512 1.512 LC TSP Rural Modernization $950,000

8 Parsons Creek Rd. Marcola Rd. to Pioch Ln. 0.000 0.899 0.899 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$560,000

14 Perkins Rd City Limits to Central Rd 0.420 2.822 2.402 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities See Veneta TSP #D6

$1,500,000

81 Prairie Rd*** Maxwell Rd to Beltline 0.118 0.690 0.572 LC TSP Complete urban Standards $350,000 107 Prairie Rd NW Expressway to Hwy

99 (Prairie Rd Connector)2.221 7.850 5.629 LC TSP Rural Modernization $3,500,000

127 Ridgeway Rd Hwy 58 to MP 1.0 0.000 1.000 1.000 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $620,000 102 River Loop #1*** River Rd to Dalewood

Street 0.000 LC TSP0.244 0.244 Urban Standards $500,000

100 River Loop #2*** River Rd to Burlwood Street

0.000 0.990 0.990 LC TSP Urban Standards $2,000,000

92 Row River Rd Sharps Cr Rd to Brice Cr Rd

16.230 19.778 3.548 LC TSP Rural Modernization $2,200,000

96 Scenic Drive *** River Loop #2 to Beacon Drive East

0.000 0.765 0.765 LC TSP Urban Standards $1,600,000

93 Sears Rd MP 0.62 to Saginaw Rd East

0.620 3.240 2.620 LC TSP Strengthen pavement structure $1,100,000

87 Seavey Loop *** Hwy 58 to Franklin Boulevard East

0.000 3.791 3.791 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities $2,400,000

133 South Jetty Rd Hwy 101 to BLM Rd 0.000 0.620 0.620 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$390,000

117 Spencer Cr Rd MP 0.5 to Pine Grove Rd 0.500 3.285 2.785 LC TSP Rural Modernization $1,700,000 99 LC TSP Spring Creek Drive

*** River Rd to Scenic Drive 0.000 0.527 0.527 Urban Standards $1,100,000

122 Stagecoach Rd* Richardson Rd to MP 0.58

0.000 0.580 0.580 LC TSP Slope stabilization $770,000

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

Source TSP Sort – Project List

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 99

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

134 Suttle Rd Hwy 126 to Territorial Hwy

0.000 3.802 3.802 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$2,380,000

6 Tillicum Ave. Hwy. 58 to Tenas Ln. 0.000 0.263 0.263 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Sidewalks and/or widen shoulders

$200,000

4 Vaughn Rd. Noti Loop Rd. to Glaze Rd.

0.000 0.953 0.953 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$600,000

5 Vaughn Rd. Canaday Rd. to Territorial Hwy.

7.954 9.906 1.952 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities – Widen shoulders

$1,220,000

114 Warthen Rd Territorial Hwy to Knight Rd

0.000 4.008 4.008 LC TSP Rural Modernization - Widen shoulders for bike use

$2,500,000

135 Wendling Rd Marcola Rd to Paschelke Rd

0.000 1.599 1.599 LC TSP Bike-Ped Facilities - Widen shoulders for bike use

$1,000,000

131 West Boundary Rd* End of Pavement to MP 6.4

1.700 6.400 4.700 LC TSP Pave gravel road $2,750,000

County Projects Identified in Urban Area TSPs 29 Pearl Street** Coburg Rd to Miller St 0.025 0.244 0.219 Coburg Urban Standards - Two-lane facility

with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes,#B1

$700,000

28 Pearl Street** Miller St to I-5 0.244 0.640 0.396 Coburg Urban Standards - Four-lane facility with median treatments, curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, #B1

$750,000

28 Coburg IndustrialWay**

Pearl Street Intersection Coburg Traffic Signal Installation and widening of approach to intersection, #B2

$0 (est. cost included in #28

above)

71 Bennett Creek Rd North River Rd to UGB (bridge)

0.000 1.008 1.008 CottageGrove

Urban Standards - Widen, upgrade guardrail

$270,000

70 1.174 Cottage Grove-Lorane Hwy

City Limit to Gowdyville Rd

0.830 0.344 CottageGrove

Bike-Ped Facilities $90,000

69 Latham Rd Hwy 99 to London Rd 0.000 0.965 0.965 Cottage Grove

Bike-Ped Facilities $100,000

68 North River Rd Hwy 99 to Bennett Creek Rd

0.000 0.433 0.433 CottageGrove

Urban Standards $430,000

67 Row River Rd UGB to Row River 1.042 2.088 1.046 Cottage Grove

Urban Standards - Three-lane facility with bike lanes

$900,000

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

Source TSP Sort – Project List

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 100

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

66 South River Rd** Hwy 99 to Jason Lee (City Limit)

0.000 0.316 0.316 CottageGrove

Urban Standards & realign at Hwy 99

$660,000

65 Sweet Lane Hwy 99 to Talemena Dr 0.000 0.718 0.718 CottageGrove

Urban Standards $570,000

64 Thornton Lane*** Row River Rd to ECM (Gate)

0.000 0.518 0.518 CottageGrove

Urban Standards - Add curb, gutter, sidewalks

$220,000

62 Harvey Road At Hwy 99 0.000 0.100 0.100 Creswell Intersection improvements at Hwy 99, High Priority #9

$200,000

3 Heceta BeachRd***

Hwy 101 to Rhododendron Drive

0.000 1.885 1.885 Florence Bike-Ped Facilities. Listed as project #I-1

$150,000

2 Munsel Lake Rd*** Hwy 101 to North Fork Siuslaw Rd

0.000 2.090 2.090 Florence Bike-Ped Facilities. Listed as project #I-3

$150,000

1 RhododendronDrive***

City Limits to Heceta Beach Rd

3.440 5.112 1.672 Florence Urban Standards-Curbs, Sidewalks, bike lanes. Part of project G-4 and bike project I-2..

$1,800,000

23 6th Avenue West City Limits to Oaklea Drive

0.000 0.330 0.330 JunctionCity

Bike-Ped, add sidewalks, restripe to add bike lanes and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #1

$50,000

22 10th Avenue West Rose Street South to Oaklea Dr

0.000 0.346 0.346 JunctionCity

Bike-Ped, add sidewalks, restripe to add bike lanes and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #2

$50,000

18 18th Avenue East & Deal St Modernization

Highway 99E to Dane Lane

0.000 0.509 0.509 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and possibly turn lanes at intersections., #4

$700,000

20 0.854 18th Avenue WestModernization

Hwy 99W to Oaklea Drive 0.000 0.854 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and possibly turn lanes at intersections such as Oaklea Dr and Rose Street., #3

$1,200,000

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

Source TSP Sort – Project List

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 101

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

24 High Pass Road Modernization

Hwy 99 to Oaklea Drive 0.000 0.859 0.859 Junction City

$1,200,000 Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #5

25 High Pass Road Modernization (Future)

Oaklea Drive to UGB 0.859 1.520 0.661 Junction City

$900,000 Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #5

21 Oaklea Drive Modernization

18th Ave West to High Pass Rd

1.512 2.534 1.022 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #7

$1,400,000

17 Pitney Lane North UGB to High Pass Road 1.370 1.509 0.139 Junction City

Urban Standards, 2 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes, #11

$200,000

19 Prairie RoadModernization

Highway 99 to High Pass Road

8.030 9.250 1.220 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #8

$1,700,000

26 Prairie RoadWidening (Future)

UGB to End (near Hwy 99)

7.300 8.030 0.730 JunctionCity

Rural Modernization. Widen shoulders. Discussion of prison siting, #9

$1,000,000

27 River RoadModernization*

Hwy 99 to vicinity of Strome Ln

0.000 0.694 0.694 JunctionCity

Urban Standards, 2-3 lane with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Need and location of turn lanes to be determined., #10

$970,000

75 Fish Hatchery Rd Hwy 58 to 1st Street 0.000 1.650 1.650 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Joint with Oakridge, #D2.

$1,000,000

72 Fish Hatchery Rd At Hwy 58 0.000 0.040 0.040 Oakridge Realignment of Fish Hatchery Rd at Hwy 58 approach. Joint with Oakridge, ODOT, #D7

$100,000

73 High Prairie Rd 1st Street to UGB 0.000 0.947 0.947 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Intersection improvements and shoulders. Joint with Oakridge, Part of #D3 and #D6

$600,000

74 Westfir-OakridgeRd

Norquist Lane to High Prairie Rd

5.707 6.065 0.358 Oakridge Bike-Ped Facilities. Joint with Oakridge, #D3.

$750,000

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

Source TSP Sort – Project List

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 102

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

40 18th Avenue** Bertelson Rd to Willow

Creek Rd 0.710 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility,

#303 $1,100,000

35 31st Street Hayden Bridge to U Street

0.542 0.905 0.850 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2-3 lane facility, #765

$1,300,000

47 Aspen St* Centennial to West D 0.000 0.441 0.441 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 to 3 lane facility, joint project Spfd, #809

$750,000

46 Beaver StreetArterial

Hunsaker Drive to Wilkes Drive

0,840 TransPlan(Future

List)

R.O.W. acquisition, general construction, new arterial #503

$1,700,000

51 BloombergConnector (McVay Highway Realignment)*

McVay Highway to 30th Ave

0.400 TransPlan Modification of connection of McVay Hwy to 30th Ave, #297

$800,000

43 Coburg Rd** Kinney Loop to Armitage Park

3.229 4.419 1.190 TransPlan Urban Standards. Reconstruct to three-lane facility to UGB, turn lane at park entrance, rural, #625

$2,400,000

45 County Farm Loop North to South Section 0.000 0.550 0.550 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3-lane facility, joint with Eugene, #631

$825,000

42 County Farm Loop West to East Section 0.550 1.080 0.530 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, joint with Eugene, #632

$800,000

58 Delta/BeltlineInterchange*

TransPlan Interim/safety improvements;replace/revise existing ramps; widen Delta Hwy bridge to 5 lanes, #638

$8,000,000

32 Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver Street

0.890 TransPlan(Future

List)

New frontage road with Willamette River Bridge #512

$4,000,000

34 Fox Hollow Rd Donald Street to UGB 8.829 9.329 0.500 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility, #245

$850,000

59 Game Farm Rd North*

I-5 to Coburg Rd 0.419 1.690 1.271 TransPlan Urban Standards, Upgrade to 2-3 lane facility, Joint with Eugene,#654

$2,200,000

50 Game Farm Rd South

Game Farm Rd East to Harlow Rd

0.930 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility,#737

$2,100,000

54 Green Hill Rd* Barger Drive to Airport Rd

3.820 5.820 2.000 TransPlan Rural widening and intersection modifications,#485

$2,000,000

10 Green Hill Rd* Barger Drive to W 11th 1.540 3.820 2.280 TransPlan Urban Standards, Upgrade to 2-3 lane facility, joint with Eugene, #454

$5,000,000

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

Source TSP Sort – Project List

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 103

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

39 Green Hill Rd** North Boundary of Airport to Airport Rd

2.060 TransPlan Closing of existing road and realignment on east boundary of airport property, #486

$3,000,000

49 Grove Street Silver Lane to Howard 0.000 0.528 0.160 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane/Route #515 $0 30 Hayden Bridge Rd

(includes 23rd) Yolanda to Marcola Rd 1.540 TransPlan Urban Standards, 2 lane facility,

#747 $2,300,000

61 W. Hilliard Ln. River Road to North Park 0.000 0.840 1.090 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #518

$0

38 Horn Lane N. Park Ave to River Road

0.000 0.928 0.928*** TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #521

$150,000

80 Howard Ave River Road to North Park 0.000 0.956 0.960 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #524

$0

48 HunsakerLane/Beaver Street*

River Rd to Division Ave 0.000 1.141 1.141 TransPlan Urban Standards-2 lane facility,#527 $2,200,000

60 Irving Rd at NW Expressway*

Gainsborough Entrance to Prairie Rd

0.300 TransPlan Construct overpass over NW Expressway and railroad. Signalize access on north side,#530

$4,200,000

52 Irvington Drive* River Road to Prairie Rd 0.000 1.479 1.479 TransPlan Urban Standards,2-3 lane facility, #533

$4,000,000

55 Jasper RoadExtension*

Main Street to Jasper Rd 3.200 TransPlan Construct 4 lane arterial: phasing to be determined: improve RR X-ing at Jasper Rd; at grade interim improvement; grade separation long range improvement,#66

$10,400,000

33 Lake Drive/N. Park Ave

Howard to Horn Lane*** 0.000 0.430 0.430 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane or Route, #536

$170,000

56 Laura St* Scots Glen Drive to Harlow Rd

0.000 0.273 0.273 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility

$550,000

36 N. Park Avenue Maxwell Rd to Horn Lane 0.268 1.298 1.030 TransPlan Bike-Ped, Striped Lane/Route #539 $200,000 31 Prairie Road** Carol Lane to Irvington

Drive 1.589 1.939 0.350 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3 lane-lane

facility, #472 $825,000

57 River Rd* Beacon Dr to Carthage 7.366 7.747 0.381 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility, #545

$1,100,000

53 Royal Avenue* Terry Street to Greenhill Avenue

2.267 3.267 1.000 TransPlan Urban Standards - Three-lane facility, joint with Eugene, #481

$2,200,000

41 W 11th Avenue Greenhill Road to Danebo

1.510 TransPlan Urban Standards, 5 lane facility, joint with Eugene, ODOT, #333

$4,500,000

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

Source TSP Sort – Project List

* Programmed (all or partially) in the adopted 2003-2007 Lane County CIP. CIP cost used.

** Project completed or under contract 104

Lane County Transportation System Plan 20-Year Project List Projects on Lane County Roads - Sorted by TSP

Project Begin End Estimated Number Road Name Limits Milepost Milepost Length Source Description Cost

44 Wilkes Drive River Road to River Loop #1

0.000 0.932 0.932 TransPlan Urban Standards, 3-lane facility, #554

$1,400,000

15 Bolton Hill Rd Territorial Hwy to UGB 0.000 1.171 1.171 Veneta Urban Standards. #B5 $1,900,000 11 Bolton Hill Rd At Territorial Hwy 0.000 0.000 0.000 Veneta Traffic Signal. Possible joint project

with Veneta, ODOT. #B15 $200,000

13 Bolton Road East Territorial Hwy to Huston Rd South

0.000 1.300 1.300 Veneta Bike-Ped Facilities, #D6 $320,000

*** Project added, description modified, or for other reasons may require action on City TSP.

MAPS

MAP 1: Lane County

MAP 2: Lane Transit District (LTD)

MAP 3: Air, Rail, Water, and Pipelines

MAP 3a: Inset for Map 3

MAP 4: Index to Functional Class Subareas

MAPS 4-1 through 4-19: Functional Class Subareas

MAPS 5a through 5c: TSP Project List

APPENDICES A. Acronyms

B. County Roads Inventory

C. Lane County Bicycle Map

[available in hard copy only- contact Lane County Public Works

Engineering, Transportation Planning Section, 682-6936]

D. Detailed Level of Service Methodology

E.1. Public Involvement Plan

E.2. Summary of 1995 Public Comments

F. Lane County General Plan Chart

G. Needs Assessment Data

H. Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals and

County Comprehensive Plan

Appendix A: Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic AOC Association of Oregon Counties APWA American Public Works Association BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad BRT Bus Rapid Transit CBE Crushed Base Equivalent (pertaining to pavement structure) CIP Capital Improvement Program CWA Clean Water Act DLCD Department of Land Conservation and Development EPCT Eugene to Pacific Crest Trail EFU Exclusive Farm Use zone F-2 Impacted Forest zone FHWA Federal Highway Administration FY Fiscal Year HCM Highway Capacity Manual ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act LC Lane Code LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission LCOG Lane Council of Governments LCPC Lane County Planning Commission LM Lane Manual LMD (Lane County Public Works) Land Management Division LOS Level of Service LTD Lane Transit District MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area (U.S. Census) MUTCD Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program OAR Oregon Administrative Rule ODA Oregon Department of Aviation ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OHP Oregon Highway Plan ORS Oregon Revised Statutes PCI Pavement Condition Index PIP Public Involvement Plan RAC (Lane County) Roads Advisory Committee RLID Regional Land Information Database ROW, R/W Right-of-Way SDC System Development Charge STAC Special Transportation Advisory Committee STF Special Transportation Funds for the Elderly and Disabled STIP State Transportation Improvement Plan STP Special Transportation Program TDM Transportation Demand Management TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TPR Transportation Planning Rule TRB Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council TSP Transportation System Plan UGB Urban Growth Boundary USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers V/C Volume to Capacity (Ratio) VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

Appendix B: County Roads Inventory The Inventory in Appendix B represents the County Road system at the time this document was adopted. It is essentially a snapshot in time, and all data included in the inventory is subject to change. LEGEND Road ID – Road number assigned to the road segment by Lane County Road Name – Legal name of Road BMP – Beginning Mile Post of road segment EMP – Ending Mile Post of road segment Functional Class – The classification of a road segment according to its expected level of service

and function. Terrain – The topography of the road segment. L=Level, R=Rolling, M=Mountainous.

If a discrepancy exists with the Terrain data appearing in the inventory, the following terrain definitions shall prevail:

a) Roads where no 500’ segment exceeds 5% in grade shall be considered

Level. b) Roads where any 500’ segment exceeds 5% in grade but does not exceed

8% in grade shall be considered Rolling. c) Roads where any 500’ segment exceeds 8% in grade shall be considered

Mountainous.

• In level terrain, highway sight distance, as governed by both horizontal and vertical restrictions, is generally long or can be made to be so without construction difficulty or major expense.

• In rolling terrain, natural slopes consistently rise above and below the road or

street grade, and occasional steep slopes offer some restriction to normal horizontal and vertical roadway alignment.

• In mountainous terrain, longitudinal and transverse changes in the elevation

of the ground with respect to the road are abrupt, and benching and side hill excavation are frequently needed to obtain acceptable horizontal and vertical alignment.

PCI – Pavement Condition Index. A method of rating the surface condition of pavement

on a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is the best. CBE - Crushed Base Equivalent. An indicator of the underlying structural integrity of

the roadway expressed as an equivalent depth of crushed rock in inches. Width - The measured width of travel surface on identified road segment. ADT Volume - The most recently measured Average Daily Traffic volume expressed as

number of vehicles per day.

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-1

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

530200 01ST AVE 0.000 0.235 Urban Local L 63 3.8 16 80 530200 01ST AVE 0.235 0.533 Urban Local L 34 28 530200 01ST AVE 0.533 0.643 Urban Local L 69 16 530285 01ST AVE LOOP 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 40 28 186200 01ST ST 0.000 0.307 Rural Local L 20 6.5 20 390 504200 01ST ST 0.000 0.154 Rural Local R 88 5.5 20 504260 01ST ST CUL 0.000 0.021 Rural Local L 23 18 530500 02ND AVE 0.000 0.057 Urban Local L 85 3.8 16 50 530600 02ND PL 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 88 9.8 18 100300 02ND ST SO 0.355 0.879 Urban Major Collector R 95 23.0 22 1100 528900 03RD AVE 0.000 0.252 Urban Local L 75 3.8 16 529200 03RD AVE 0.000 0.135 Urban Local L 69 3.8 16 530400 03RD PL 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 94 9.8 16 177800 03RD ST 0.000 0.223 Urban Local L 96 9.0 28 600 512500 03RD ST 0.000 0.130 Rural Local L 100 5.0 13 30 528500 04TH AVE 0.000 0.562 Urban Local L 100 17.0 20 650 530100 05TH AVE 0.000 0.270 Urban Local L 68 8.8 16 153000 05TH ST 0.000 0.068 Urban Local L 61 40 4800 177700 05TH ST 0.000 0.217 Urban Local L 95 26 800 530300 06TH AVE 0.000 0.075 Urban Local L 59 3.8 16 346500 06TH AVE WEST 0.520 0.850 Rural Major Collector L 9.5 36 2500 162600 06TH ST 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 94 15.5 32 362400 06TH ST 0.060 0.236 Rural Local L 82 16 362400 06TH ST 0.236 0.355 Rural Local L 362400 06TH ST 0.355 0.450 Rural Local L 67 17 362400 06TH ST 0.450 0.525 Rural Local L 90 18 211700 06TH ST NO 0.176 0.366 Urban Local L 1 20 221800 06TH ST SO 0.704 1.075 Urban Minor Arterial L 86 38 3200 221800 06TH ST SO 1.075 1.450 Rural Major Collector L 86 23.0 38 2550 221800 06TH ST SO 1.450 2.197 Rural Major Collector L 70 29.5 34 4500 163400 07TH ST 0.000 0.067 Urban Local L 98 10.0 16 260 361900 08TH ST 0.000 0.550 Rural Local L 76 20 700

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-2

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

361905 08TH ST (Y) 0.000 0.042 Rural Local L 89 25 346800 10TH AVE WEST 0.495 0.841 Rural Major Collector L 18.0 36 800 222000 10TH ST SO 0.000 0.105 Urban Local L 73 13.5 16 20 347400 11TH ST 0.000 0.082 Urban Local L 96 10.3 20 222100 11TH ST SO 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 62 6.0 16 222200 12TH ST SO 0.000 0.048 Urban Local L 53 3.5 16 183200 14TH AVE EAST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 97 8.5 20 183200 14TH AVE EAST 0.120 0.189 Urban Local L 98 20 154000 14TH PL 0.000 0.080 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 70 183300 15TH AVE EAST 0.116 0.240 Urban Local L 97 11.8 18 100 177600 15TH ST 0.000 0.171 Urban Local L 100 14.0 36 270 180600 15TH ST 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 100 10.0 32 183400 16TH AVE EAST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 79 16.0 14 154200 16TH ST 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 100 13.0 32 330 154500 16TH ST 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 100 10.0 32 320 154530 16TH ST (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 100 32 154560 16TH ST (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 100 32 183500 17TH AVE EAST 0.000 0.119 Urban Local L 97 10.0 20 182900 17TH AVE EAST 0.185 0.293 Urban Local L 100 20.5 44 2450 154600 17TH PL 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 190 154630 17TH PL (CUL) 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 100 32 154700 17TH ST 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 100 15.0 32 220 162300 17TH ST 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 191200 17TH ST 0.000 0.078 Urban Local L 44 11.0 20 191900 17TH ST 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 97 8.0 28 347500 18TH AVE EAST & DEAL ST 0.000 0.300 Rural Minor Collector L 74 20 950 347300 18TH AVE WEST 0.000 0.854 Urban Major Collector L 81 20.5 22 950 182200 19TH AVE EAST 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 100 22 900 182200 19TH AVE EAST 0.140 0.497 Urban Local L 100 12.3 22 950 191000 19TH ST 0.000 0.392 Urban Major Collector L 90 14.5 24 10200 177300 20TH ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 93 8.0 28 430 191400 20TH ST 0.000 0.081 Urban Local L 93 13.0 32 613200 20TH ST 0.000 0.060 Urban Local R 93 15.5 20 177300 20TH ST 0.070 0.360 Urban Local L 90 18.0 32 490

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-3

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

177300 20TH ST 0.360 0.371 Urban Local L 90 32 177350 20TH ST CUL 0.000 0.016 Urban Local L 98 69 177360 20TH ST CUL 0.000 0.016 Urban Local L 97 70 177400 21ST ST 0.000 0.252 Urban Local L 97 9.5 26 340 613300 22ND ST 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 88 14.3 23 180900 23RD ST 0.000 0.252 Urban Minor Collector L 93 20 1400 181200 23RD ST 0.000 0.078 Urban Local L 85 13.0 32 613400 24TH ST 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 88 11.5 20 101500 26TH ST SO 0.000 0.216 Rural Local L 95 11.0 20 20 101500 26TH ST SO 0.216 0.360 Rural Local L 20 527800 26TH ST WEST 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 99 7.0 34 154800 27TH ST 0.000 0.098 Urban Local L 97 15.0 32 320 180800 28TH ST 0.000 0.161 Urban Local L 84 19.0 16 140 101000 28TH ST SO 0.660 0.795 Urban Local L 95 11.0 24 220 185000 30TH AVE 0.000 0.100 Urban Minor Arterial L 55 22 16000 185000 30TH AVE 0.100 1.500 Urban Minor Arterial R 83 20.0 40 11200 185000 30TH AVE 1.500 1.670 Urban Minor Arterial R 88 54 185000 30TH AVE 1.670 2.109 Urban Minor Arterial R 88 18.0 54 185600 30TH AVE FRONTAGE RD 0.000 0.326 Rural Local L 64 20 80 185600 30TH AVE FRONTAGE RD 0.594 0.630 Rural Local L 57 22 1100 185695 30TH AVE FRONTAGE RD (Y) 0.606 0.657 Rural Local L 50 19 185003 30TH AVE NE RAMP #10 0.000 0.121 Urban Minor Arterial L 80 26 185001 30TH AVE NW RAMP #21 0.000 0.152 Urban Minor Arterial L 87 26 1350 185002 30TH AVE SW RAMP #30 0.000 0.135 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 26 2250 185004 30TH AVE SW RAMP #30 0.000 0.182 Urban Minor Arterial L 93 26 185005 30TH AVE SW RAMP #30 (Y) 0.118 0.143 Urban Minor Arterial L 94 16 192500 31ST ST / 28TH ST 0.542 0.905 Urban Major Collector L 91 7.0 20 1700 155300 32ND ST 0.000 0.105 Urban Local L 91 13.0 30 160 177500 33RD ST 0.000 0.148 Urban Local L 95 17.0 28 101400 34TH PL SO 0.000 0.188 Urban Local L 100 17.0 32 160 176700 34TH ST 0.000 0.241 Urban Local L 94 10.7 26 260 176720 34TH ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 90 13.0 26 176760 34TH ST CUL 'B' 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 97 9.5 26 176780 34TH ST CUL 'C' 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 98 28

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-4

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

177200 35TH PL 0.000 0.039 Urban Local L 94 15.0 28 176900 35TH ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 95 15.0 28 270 176900 35TH ST 0.100 0.218 Urban Local L 96 9.0 26 155500 37TH ST 0.000 0.130 Urban Local L 98 11.0 32 260 155570 37TH ST (CUL) 0.000 0.071 Urban Local L 96 15.0 32 155600 38TH ST 0.000 0.116 Urban Local L 96 12.0 32 140 102000 39TH ST SO 0.000 0.260 Urban Local L 100 18.0 36 1400 102000 39TH ST SO 0.260 0.264 Urban Local L 100 18 102000 39TH ST SO 0.264 0.387 Urban Local L 100 18 102030 39TH ST SO (CUL) 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 100 17.0 35 102040 39TH ST SO (CUL) 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 100 18.0 32 102050 39TH ST SO (CUL) 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 100 18.0 32 125800 40TH AVE WEST 0.000 0.140 Rural Local R 39 10.0 20 102800 40TH PL SO 0.000 0.096 Urban Local L 100 10.5 26 230 199800 44TH AVE WEST 0.000 0.045 Rural Local L 66 20 199700 57TH ST SO 0.000 0.355 Urban Major Collector R ~100 20 7450 103700 66TH ST 0.050 0.241 Urban Local L 84 18 350 103700 66TH ST 0.241 0.652 Rural Local L 84 18 104600 79TH ST SO 0.000 0.536 Urban Local L 50 8.0 20 380 197100 A ST 0.000 0.069 Rural Local L 85 11.5 22 266000 ADAMS RD 0.000 0.499 Rural Local L 61 13.0 22 70 325600 ADMIRAL ST 0.000 0.288 Urban Local L 95 15.0 36 450 325620 ADMIRAL ST CUL 0.000 0.021 Urban Local L 96 70 325690 ADMIRAL ST CUL 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 89 70 325640 ADMIRAL ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 92 12.0 28 325650 ADMIRAL ST CUL 'B' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 94 12.0 28 342800 AIRPORT RD 0.670 1.320 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 20.5 44 3950 342800 AIRPORT RD 1.320 1.326 Rural Minor Arterial L 88 30 342800 AIRPORT RD 1.326 1.690 Rural Local L 88 14.3 30 1100 614400 AIRPORT RD (OAKRIDGE) 0.000 0.951 Rural Local M 85 10.3 18 150 614460 AIRPORT RD (OAKRIDGE) 0.000 0.304 Rural Local L 95 21 326000 ALAMEDA ST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 97 18.0 38 138800 ALBERTA LN 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 95 11.0 24 120 194400 ALDER BRANCH RD 0.000 0.710 Rural Local L 92 6.8 19 90

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-5

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

363200 ALDERWOOD DR 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 92 20 30 363200 ALDERWOOD DR 0.050 0.122 Rural Local L 19 363200 ALDERWOOD DR 0.122 0.266 Rural Local L 14 135000 ALDERWOOD ST 0.000 0.108 Urban Local L 87 16.5 22 120 135900 ALDERWOOD ST 0.000 0.154 Urban Local L 63 11.0 26 514300 ALEXANDER RD 0.000 0.540 Rural Local L 8.0 12 319300 ALLADIN WAY 0.000 0.131 Urban Local L 92 14.5 32 362800 ALLEN & BALES RD 0.000 0.272 Rural Local L 100 20 110 151500 ALLEN AVE 0.000 0.057 Urban Local L 90 11.0 20 156500 ALLEN AVE 0.000 0.175 Urban Local L 90 12.0 26 257500 ALLEN RD 0.000 0.560 Rural Local M 84 7.0 18 70 257500 ALLEN RD 0.560 0.770 Rural Local R 55 12 257500 ALLEN RD 0.770 0.970 Rural Local R 13 435200 ALLISON RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 97 10.5 16 80 435200 ALLISON RD 0.500 0.888 Rural Local R 88 16 435205 ALLISON RD (Y) 0.000 0.022 Rural Local R 100 18 317200 ALTURA ST 0.000 0.195 Urban Local L 88 18.0 36 317230 ALTURA ST CUL 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 94 14.0 32 361500 ALVADORE RD 0.000 3.587 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 17.0 26 600

361500 ALVADORE RD 3.587 6.100 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

81 14.6 26 1400

361500 ALVADORE RD 6.100 6.282 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

90 30 1500

324300 ALYNDALE DR 0.000 0.389 Urban Local L 95 18.0 28 324400 ALYNDALE DR 0.000 0.160 Urban Local L 86 19.0 28 326400 AMESBURY AVE 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 96 7.0 28 321300 ANCHOR AVE 0.000 0.082 Urban Local L 96 17.0 26 322200 ANCHOR AVE EAST 0.000 0.266 Urban Local L 97 15.0 26 380 322000 ANCHOR AVE WEST 0.000 0.359 Urban Local L 94 11.0 30 430 144000 ANDERSEN LN 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 89 12.0 32 150700 ANDERSON LN 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 96 10.5 22 165800 ANDERSON LN 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 93 29 1650 165800 ANDERSON LN 0.120 0.301 Urban Local L 94 15.0 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-6

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

150710 ANDERSON LN (CUL) 0.000 0.033 Urban Local L 165860 ANDERSON LN (CUL) 0.000 0.053 Urban Local L 97 32 165870 ANDERSON LN (CUL) 0.000 0.053 Urban Local L 94 32 165890 ANDERSON LN (CUL) 0.000 0.053 Urban Local L 94 32 318400 ANDOVER ST 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 109000 ANGELS FLIGHT RD 0.000 1.788 Rural Local R 74 11.0 12 160 152400 ANN CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 91 6.0 20 134900 APPLE DR 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 88 14.0 32 362200 APPLEGATE TRAIL 0.000 2.584 Rural Minor Collector R 84 22 1600 410200 APPLETREE CT 0.000 0.238 Rural Local R 90 13.5 24 410100 APPLETREE DR 0.000 1.501 Rural Local M 81 11.0 24 110 528100 ARAGO ST 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 77 3.8 16 160 529300 ARCH ST 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 74 3.9 16 504100 ARCHER LN 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 4.0 13 320700 ARCHWOOD ST 0.000 0.183 Urban Local L 97 12.0 28 319800 ARGON AVE 0.000 0.085 Urban Local L 92 17.5 17 171900 ARMITAGE RD 0.000 1.177 Urban Local L 61 20 650 135300 ARMSTRONG AVE 0.000 0.296 Urban Local L 61 14.5 26 210 270300 ARNE LN 0.000 0.112 Rural Local R 95 8.5 20 400500 ARNOLD LN 0.000 0.777 Rural Local L 87 11.0 24 500 320100 ARROWHEAD ST 0.000 0.230 Urban Minor Collector L 95 16.5 22 900 320100 ARROWHEAD ST 0.230 0.234 Urban Minor Collector L 95 36 320100 ARROWHEAD ST 0.234 0.350 Urban Local L 89 36 320100 ARROWHEAD ST 0.623 0.708 Urban Local L 91 22 100800 ASH ST 0.000 0.198 Urban Local L 94 13 167500 ASPEN ST 0.000 0.181 Urban Minor Collector L 84 25 1800 167500 ASPEN ST 0.337 0.441 Urban Minor Collector L 82 22 216900 ASTORIA AVE 0.000 0.034 Rural Local L 100 15.0 36 135400 AUDEL AVE 0.000 0.204 Urban Local L 92 15.5 32 330 135460 AUDEL AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 93 32 438700 AUSTA RD 0.000 0.144 Rural Local R 87 10.3 18 90 332300 AUTUMN AVE 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 97 17.0 32 344000 AWBREY LN 0.000 0.170 Rural Major Collector L 88 22 1300 344000 AWBREY LN 0.170 1.340 Rural Major Collector L 88 11.0 22 1050

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-7

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

344000 AWBREY LN 1.340 1.350 Rural Major Collector L 22 344000 AWBREY LN 1.350 1.587 Rural Major Collector L 59 10.3 28 1000 329200 AZALEA AVE 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 95 14.0 26 186000 B ST 0.000 0.124 Rural Local L 49 6.5 20 197200 B ST 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 94 9.5 16 362000 B ST 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 82 18 362000 B ST 0.140 0.267 Rural Local L 93 18 220500 BACHMANN LN 0.000 0.136 Rural Local L 98 14.0 17 122400 BAILEY HILL LP RD 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 24 18 122400 BAILEY HILL LP RD 0.090 0.262 Rural Local L 24 18 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 1.660 2.140 Rural Major Collector R 89 16.5 25 5650 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 2.140 2.498 Rural Major Collector R 88 30 4250 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 2.498 3.010 Rural Major Collector R 88 30 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 3.010 3.113 Rural Major Collector R 85 29 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 3.113 4.616 Rural Major Collector R 85 22.3 29 3600 355000 BAILEY LN 0.000 0.252 Rural Local L 100 18 180 355000 BAILEY LN 0.252 0.499 Rural Local L 100 18 110 214200 BAILEY RD 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 81 9.5 20 214200 BAILEY RD 0.120 0.220 Rural Local L 10 608100 BAIN LN 0.000 0.100 Rural Local R 8.0 10 522000 BAKER BEACH RD 0.000 0.480 Rural Local L 5.0 16 20 402600 BAKER RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 78 9.0 20 210 402600 BAKER RD 0.500 0.640 Rural Local L 79 20 402600 BAKER RD 0.640 1.000 Rural Local L 15 402605 BAKER RD (Y) 0.000 0.061 Rural Local L 85 20 387000 BANGS RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 85 36 460 387000 BANGS RD 0.150 0.500 Rural Local L 90 22 318800 BANNER ST 0.000 0.221 Urban Local L 93 15.0 28 321900 BANNER ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 93 8.0 28 321900 BANNER ST 0.100 0.319 Urban Local L 94 13.0 32 316900 BANOVER ST 0.000 0.086 Urban Local L 93 15.0 30 326900 BANTON AVE & CUL 0.000 0.470 Urban Local L 89 8.0 28 600 611600 BARBRE RD 0.000 0.620 Rural Local L 69 11.3 20 470 146500 BARGER DR 2.225 2.663 Rural Major Collector L 98 11.5 20 3725

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-8

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

373000 BARKER RD 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 98 28 550 373000 BARKER RD 0.060 0.311 Rural Local L 73 18 139300 BARRETT AVE 0.000 0.193 Urban Local L 92 18.5 28 320900 BARSTOW AVE 0.000 0.258 Urban Minor Collector L 97 11.0 36 425 137700 BARTON DR 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 95 13.5 28 136400 BARTON ST 0.000 0.126 Urban Local L 94 11.0 26 515500 BASSONETTE RD 0.000 0.080 Rural Local R 14 515500 BASSONETTE RD 0.080 0.095 Rural Local R 92 14 515500 BASSONETTE RD 0.095 0.577 Rural Local R 6.0 14 515505 BASSONETTE RD (Y) 0.000 0.033 Rural Local R 14 408200 BATTLE CR RD 0.000 3.360 Rural Local L ~52 20 140 408200 BATTLE CR RD 3.360 4.935 Rural Local R 15 10 408220 BATTLE CR RD (STUB/BR) 0.000 0.094 Rural Local L 22 138600 BAUER LN 0.000 0.205 Urban Local L 94 10.0 24 270 142300 BAUER LN CUL 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 88 17.0 26 524100 BAYBERRY DR 0.000 0.277 Rural Local L 88 5.8 20 200 326200 BAYWOOD ST 0.000 0.162 Urban Local L 95 16.0 28 219400 BEACH RD 0.000 1.456 Rural Local L 76 13.5 20 130 315000 BEACON DR EAST 0.000 0.740 Urban Minor Collector L 40 26 950 315000 BEACON DR EAST 0.740 0.749 Urban Minor Collector L 65 20 315000 BEACON DR EAST 0.749 0.830 Urban Local L 65 20 370 315000 BEACON DR EAST 0.830 1.300 Urban Local L 65 13.5 20 315000 BEACON DR EAST 1.300 1.916 Urban Local L 64 15.5 20 240 315600 BEACON DR WEST 0.000 0.154 Rural Minor Collector L 97 22 1450 315600 BEACON DR WEST 0.154 1.000 Rural Minor Collector L 97 21.3 22 315600 BEACON DR WEST 1.000 1.172 Rural Minor Collector L 97 22 1350 361400 BEAR CR RANCH RD 0.000 0.491 Rural Local R 81 24 602800 BEAR CR RD 0.000 2.160 Rural Minor Collector R 89 21.5 24 700 602800 BEAR CR RD 2.160 2.850 Rural Local L 92 22 602800 BEAR CR RD 2.850 3.170 Rural Local R 78 18 602900 BEAR CR RD CUL 0.000 0.056 Rural Local L 86 14.0 22 131100 BEAVER ST 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 60 20 332100 BEAVER ST CUL #1 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 95 14.0 32 332400 BEAVER ST CUL #2 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 95 14.0 28

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-9

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

138200 BEEBE LN 0.000 0.230 Urban Local L 94 7.0 20 260 138200 BEEBE LN 0.230 0.350 Urban Local L 62 20 190 113500 BELKNAP SPRINGS RD NO 0.000 0.205 Rural Local L 93 9.5 22 100 114100 BELKNAP SPRINGS RD SO 0.000 0.432 Rural Local L 65 16.0 20 10 523400 BEN BUNCH RD 0.000 0.976 Rural Local R 69 4.5 14 221200 BENNETT CR RD 0.000 0.400 Rural Local L 70 20 700 221200 BENNETT CR RD 0.400 2.989 Rural Local L 70 7.5 20 221204 BENNETT CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.026 Rural Local L 91 13 221205 BENNETT CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.016 Rural Local L 90 14 503400 BERNHARDT CR RD 0.000 0.063 Rural Minor Collector M 93 15 80 503400 BERNHARDT CR RD 0.063 6.985 Rural Minor Collector M 8.1 15 503400 BERNHARDT CR RD 6.985 7.058 Rural Minor Collector M 48 15 505200 BERNHARDT HEIGHTS 0.000 0.350 Rural Local M 10.0 13 50 132700 BERWIN LN 0.000 0.051 Urban Local L 93 10.0 30 132100 BERWIN LN NO 0.000 0.138 Urban Local L 85 12.0 28 320 136700 BETTY LN 0.000 0.124 Urban Local L 88 6.0 20 187500 BEYMER RD 0.000 0.577 Rural Local L 57 16 140 508200 BIG CR RD 0.000 8.940 Rural Local R 6.0 15 30 508200 BIG CR RD 8.940 13.311 Rural Local M 76 13.2 14 624000 BIG FALL CR RD 0.000 7.550 Rural Major Collector M 65 16.9 22 1600 624000 BIG FALL CR RD 7.550 9.110 Rural Major Collector M 84 11.0 22 340 254600 BIGELOW WAY 0.000 0.183 Rural Local L 82 19.0 20 364900 BLACHLY GRANGE RD 0.000 0.395 Rural Local L 85 20 550 323000 BLACKFOOT AVE 0.000 0.300 Urban Minor Collector L 96 16.0 36 1350 323000 BLACKFOOT AVE 0.300 0.806 Urban Minor Collector L 96 14.0 36 1150 334500 BLACKFOOT AVE CUL #3 0.000 0.051 Urban Local L 94 32 334600 BLACKFOOT AVE CUL #4 0.000 0.023 Urban Local L 93 34 157600 BLACKSTONE CT 0.000 0.023 Urban Local L 95 44 157400 BLACKSTONE ST 0.000 0.201 Urban Local L 96 12.0 28 240 162700 BLACKSTONE ST 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 83 15.5 32 529800 BLANCO ST 0.000 0.099 Urban Local L 72 3.8 16 125900 BLANTON HEIGHTS ST 0.000 0.144 Rural Local L 49 18 125600 BLANTON RD 0.000 0.350 Rural Local L 68 22 1300 125600 BLANTON RD 0.350 1.110 Rural Local L 68 22

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-10

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

125600 BLANTON RD 1.110 2.097 Rural Local R 79 20 900 324500 BLAZER AVE 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 89 36 480 324500 BLAZER AVE 0.090 0.310 Urban Local L 94 16.0 28 324550 BLAZER AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 93 32 324570 BLAZER AVE CUL 'B' 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 92 32 507300 BLOCK RD 0.000 0.216 Rural Local L 6.0 11 20 184000 BLOOMBERG RD 0.000 0.870 Rural Local L 95 9.3 22 300 188000 BLOSSOM ST 0.000 0.204 Rural Local L 100 34 550 257200 BLUE MOUNTAIN LANE 0.000 0.720 Rural Local L 9.5 15 277100 BLUE MTN LN (N) 0.000 0.449 Rural Local L 12 257000 BLUE MTN SCHOOL RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Local R 75 16.3 24 380 257000 BLUE MTN SCHOOL RD 1.000 1.500 Rural Local R 59 20 260 257000 BLUE MTN SCHOOL RD 1.500 3.206 Rural Local R 69 10.4 20 110500 BLUE RIVER DR 0.000 1.555 Rural Minor Collector R 74 17.3 22 600 110200 BLUE RIVER RD 0.000 1.640 Rural Local R 68 13.8 22 180 330300 BOBOLINK AVE 0.000 0.230 Urban Local L 96 12.0 30 370 427200 BODENHAMER RD 0.000 1.062 Rural Minor Collector L 88 22.0 24 900 427200 BODENHAMER RD 1.062 1.345 Rural Minor Collector L 88 24 750 427295 BODENHAMER RD (Y) 1.303 1.342 Rural Minor Collector L 98 24 406200 BOLTON HILL RD 0.000 1.171 Rural Major Collector R 89 15.1 26 1750 406200 BOLTON HILL RD 1.171 3.254 Rural Major Collector R 89 11.3 26 400 405600 BOLTON RD EAST 0.556 0.560 Rural Local L 79 8.3 20 800 405600 BOLTON RD EAST 0.560 1.328 Rural Local L 79 20 650 361700 BOND RD 0.000 1.310 Rural Local L 21 60 243000 BOOTH KELLY CAMP RD 0.000 0.560 Rural Local L 84 15.8 20 105900 BOOTH KELLY RD 0.000 1.440 Rural Local L 86 15.0 22 400 534200 BOY SCOUT RD 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 86 10.0 20 220 534200 BOY SCOUT RD 0.050 0.510 Urban Local L 73 20 130200 BOYCE ST 0.000 0.046 Urban Local L 94 10.5 28 605000 BRABHAM RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 89 10.5 18 500 605000 BRABHAM RD 0.500 0.770 Rural Local L 88 18 130 335200 BRADFORD CT 0.000 0.094 Urban Local L 81 15.0 28 602400 BRADFORD RD NO 0.000 0.590 Rural Local L 80 10.5 20 200 603000 BRADFORD RD SO 0.000 0.385 Rural Local L 79 8.0 22 310

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-11

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

603020 BRADFORD RD SO CUL 0.000 0.147 Rural Local L 86 14.7 22 603090 BRADFORD RD SO CUL 0.000 0.125 Rural Local L 84 22 192600 BRADLEY WAY 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 48 11.0 28 112900 BRENT RD 0.000 0.086 Rural Local L 81 12.3 22 134800 BRENTWOOD AVE 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 87 16.5 24 100 135800 BRENTWOOD ST 0.000 0.153 Urban Local L 49 14.0 26 139000 BRIARCLIFF DR 0.060 0.159 Urban Local L 89 16.5 30 650 139100 BRIARCLIFF PL 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 94 17.5 30 315100 BRIARS ST 0.000 0.080 Urban Local L 92 18.0 22 80 315900 BRIARS ST 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 91 16.0 36 315100 BRIARS ST 0.080 0.180 Urban Local L 85 10.0 28 315100 BRIARS ST 0.180 0.278 Urban Local L 93 13.0 36 247000 BRICE CR RD 0.000 2.150 Rural Minor Collector M 75 7.9 20 247000 BRICE CR RD 2.150 3.340 Rural Minor Collector M 78 20 247000 BRICE CR RD 3.340 8.122 Rural Minor Collector M 65 10.6 22 106000 BRIDGE ST 0.000 0.006 Rural Minor Collector L 99 24 106000 BRIDGE ST 0.006 0.190 Rural Minor Collector L 100 11.0 22 106000 BRIDGE ST 0.190 0.295 Rural Minor Collector L 92 22 950 106000 BRIDGE ST 0.295 0.555 Rural Local L 96 22 409000 BRIGGS HILL RD 0.000 2.500 Rural Minor Collector R 62 7.4 20 130 409000 BRIGGS HILL RD 2.500 4.401 Rural Minor Collector R 62 13.0 20 550 607000 BRISTOW RD 0.000 0.406 Rural Local L 89 12.3 18 260 616000 BROCK RD 0.000 1.503 Rural Local R 78 10.3 20 110 335900 BROCKTON PL 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 88 16.0 32 170900 BROOKDALE AVE 0.000 0.103 Urban Local L 93 11.0 28 216300 BROOKHURST ST 0.000 0.171 Urban Local L 99 9.0 36 170 336700 BROTHERTON AVE 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 84 32 628200 BROWN RD 0.000 0.395 Rural Local L 92 10.0 20 220 106700 BRYANT LN 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 96 12.0 22 60 106770 BRYANT LN 0.000 0.048 Rural Local L 84 21 242500 BRYSON-SEARS RD 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 57 20 240 242500 BRYSON-SEARS RD 0.090 1.216 Rural Local L 64 12.3 20 522700 BUCK LAKE DR 0.000 0.159 Rural Local L 84 3.5 18 100 371600 BUCKSKIN DR 0.000 0.456 Rural Local L 94 14.0 22 140

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-12

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

363000 BUD VAUGHAN RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 100 22 240 363000 BUD VAUGHAN RD 0.500 0.900 Rural Local L 100 22 363005 BUD VAUGHAN RD (Y) 0.000 0.028 Rural Local L 95 21 189700 BUFORD PARK RD 0.000 0.824 Rural Local L 7.0 16 600 226200 BURKETT RD 0.000 0.780 Rural Local L 78 22 154900 BURLINGTON AVE 0.000 0.096 Urban Local L 97 8.0 32 318600 BURLWOOD ST 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 87 13.5 28 130500 BUSHNELL LN 0.000 0.337 Urban Local L 88 19.2 24 1175 133300 BUSHNELL LN EAST 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 79 24 133300 BUSHNELL LN EAST 0.020 0.065 Urban Local L 92 14 410 133300 BUSHNELL LN EAST 0.065 0.464 Urban Local L 77 11.0 26 147200 BUSHNELL LN WEST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 98 23.0 22 147200 BUSHNELL LN WEST 0.120 0.203 Urban Local L 0 18 384800 BUTLER RD 0.000 2.200 Rural Local R 76 22 260 402800 BUTLER RD 0.000 0.070 Rural Local R 84 30 140 402800 BUTLER RD 0.070 3.903 Rural Local R 75 9.8 20 150 213300 BUTTE RD 0.450 2.288 Rural Local L 80 20 320 340200 BYRON ST 0.000 0.138 Urban Local L 93 13.0 29 340500 BYRON ST 0.000 0.074 Urban Local L 96 14.0 30 186100 C ST 0.000 0.147 Rural Local L 45 7.3 20 120 329600 CALLA ST 0.000 0.173 Urban Minor Collector L 96 16.0 28 1300 329600 CALLA ST 0.173 0.369 Urban Local L 95 36 329680 CALLA ST CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 96 29 334200 CALUMET AVE 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 18 317700 CALUMET DR 0.000 0.172 Urban Local L 75 13.0 36 213000 CAMAS SWALE RD 0.550 0.743 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 92 26 2950

213000 CAMAS SWALE RD 0.743 7.010 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

19.9 26 2200

156900 CAMBRIDGE ST 0.000 0.143 Urban Local L 93 10.0 28 131500 CAMELOT AVE 0.000 0.082 Urban Local L 96 9.0 28 350 193000 CAMP CR RD 0.000 2.000 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 87 19.0 30 3250

193000 CAMP CR RD 2.000 3.000 Rural Major Collector R 87 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-13

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

(Fed) 193000 CAMP CR RD 3.000 7.000 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 89 30 2050

193000 CAMP CR RD 7.000 8.416 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

89 21.0 30 1100

327600 CAMROSE ST 0.000 0.051 Urban Local L 63 6.5 26 108600 CANAL LN 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 81 4.0 22 40 532000 CANARY RD 0.000 0.686 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 70 17.3 25 2000

532000 CANARY RD 0.686 1.366 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

93 16.3 25 1650

532000 CANARY RD 1.366 5.105 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M

76 17.1 25 750

180700 CANTERBURY ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 92 14.5 36 330100 CANTERBURY ST 0.000 0.334 Urban Local L 92 17.0 36 350 180700 CANTERBURY ST 0.070 0.097 Urban Local L 87 16 423800 CANTRELL RD 0.000 0.230 Rural Local R 67 22 200 423800 CANTRELL RD 0.230 0.500 Rural Local R 67 22 423800 CANTRELL RD 0.500 1.060 Rural Local R 53 18 423800 CANTRELL RD 1.060 2.400 Rural Local L 22 170 423800 CANTRELL RD 2.400 2.530 Rural Local L 69 20 423800 CANTRELL RD 2.530 3.806 Rural Local L 67 8.3 20 280 330000 CARBONA ST 0.000 0.244 Urban Local L 85 11.0 36 290 162100 CARDINAL WAY 0.000 0.138 Urban Local L 95 8.0 26 270600 CARMEN LN 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 80 14.5 24 344100 CAROL AVE 0.000 0.432 Rural Local L 66 12.0 20 132600 CAROLYN DR 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 96 11.0 28 200 132600 CAROLYN DR 0.100 0.135 Urban Local L 96 32 197300 CARSON ST 0.000 0.215 Rural Local L 91 9.3 20 316000 CARTHAGE AVE 0.000 0.431 Urban Local L 96 20.0 36 600 316100 CARTHAGE AVE CUL 0.000 0.089 Urban Local L 97 14.0 32 197800 CARTWRIGHT CR RD 0.000 0.589 Rural Local L 85 13.5 20 140 329500 CASSINIA CT 0.000 0.059 Urban Local L 94 11.5 24 156000 CASTLE DR 0.000 0.225 Urban Local L 88 13.0 26 370

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-14

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

318000 CASTREY ST 0.000 0.049 Urban Local L 100 13.5 28 180 219600 CEA-JACK RD 0.000 0.366 Rural Local L 76 7.5 20 90 343700 CECIL AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 68 14.0 22 274500 CEDAR CR RD 0.000 1.800 Rural Local L 71 8.0 20 270 274500 CEDAR CR RD 1.800 2.224 Rural Local R 8.0 15 531500 CEDAR DR 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 83 5.5 20 105000 CEDAR FLAT RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 33 7.4 18 750 105000 CEDAR FLAT RD 0.500 2.170 Rural Local M 87 16.0 24 340 105000 CEDAR FLAT RD 2.170 2.280 Rural Local R 84 16.0 24 105030 CEDAR FLAT RD (STUB/BR) 0.000 0.008 Rural Local L 5.0 20 608500 CEDAR HILLS DR 0.000 0.220 Rural Local L 88 18.0 28 120 608500 CEDAR HILLS DR 0.220 0.360 Rural Local L 77 20 608550 CEDAR HILLS DR CUL 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 78 27 241800 CEDAR PARK RD NO 0.000 0.670 Rural Local L 52 6.5 20 700 242000 CEDAR PARK RD SO 0.000 0.328 Rural Local L 79 14.3 23 250 602700 CEDARCROFT RD 0.000 0.164 Rural Local L 75 19.0 24 150200 CENTENNIAL BLVD 1.827 2.176 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 62 11800 255300 CENTER ST 0.000 0.270 Rural Local L 72 10.0 20 100900 CENTRAL BLVD 0.050 0.250 Urban Local R 13 10 428800 CENTRAL RD 0.000 1.920 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 83 14.0 28 1850

428800 CENTRAL RD 1.920 4.990 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

84 15.0 22 800

125400 CHAMBERS ST 0.000 0.163 Urban Local L 96 22 125400 CHAMBERS ST 0.163 0.204 Urban Local L 96 22 1350 247300 CHAMPION CR RD 0.000 8.137 Rural Local M 12 325000 CHAPEL DR 0.000 0.129 Urban Local L 95 15.0 26 326300 CHAPMAN DR 0.000 0.357 Urban Local L 98 16.0 22 150 525700 CHAPMAN RD 0.000 0.037 Rural Local R 83 9.5 22 156400 CHATEAU PL 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 94 19.0 28 154100 CHEEK ST 0.000 0.116 Urban Local L 100 17.0 22 110 123400 CHEROKEE DR 0.000 0.690 Rural Local R 90 24 170 138100 CHESTNUT ST 0.000 0.215 Urban Local L 97 17.8 26 220 503200 CHESTNUT ST 0.000 0.244 Rural Local L 82 5.5 22 500

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-15

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

127800 CHEZEM RD 0.000 1.642 Rural Local L 74 18 380 370300 CHILDERS RD 0.000 0.089 Rural Local L 66 22 140 105700 CHITA LOOP 0.000 0.435 Rural Local R 74 11.0 22 180 128400 CHRISTENSEN RD 0.000 0.175 Rural Local R 89 7.3 20 40 128400 CHRISTENSEN RD 0.175 1.039 Rural Local R 13 433200 CHRISTIAN RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 91 7.3 16 50 430300 CHUKAR LN 0.000 0.181 Rural Local L 78 13.3 22 110 622600 CHURCH RD 0.000 0.346 Rural Local L 80 18 622605 CHURCH RD (Y) 0.000 0.013 Rural Local L 80 16 321600 CINDERELLA LP 0.000 0.178 Urban Local L 94 10.0 32 333900 CINDY ST CUL #1 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 95 32 329900 CINNAMON AVE 0.000 0.182 Urban Local L 90 14.0 32 329925 CINNAMON AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 96 14.0 32 329930 CINNAMON AVE CUL 'B' 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 97 15.0 32 329960 CINNAMON AVE CUL 'C' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 94 14.0 32 329970 CINNAMON AVE CUL 'D' 0.000 0.047 Urban Local L 94 14.0 32 323400 CLAIRMONT DR 0.000 0.197 Urban Local L 93 15.0 28 214500 CLAYTON RD 0.000 0.436 Rural Local R 58 10.0 22 534000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.000 0.142 Rural Major Collector L 84 15.0 22 1250 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.000 0.060 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 81 40 6450

370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.060 0.132 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

81 40

370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.132 2.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

81 26.0 40 6600

534000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.142 2.290 Rural Major Collector R 84 15.0 22 850 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 2.000 2.810 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 40

534000 CLEAR LAKE RD 2.290 4.233 Rural Major Collector R 89 16.2 26 1000 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 2.810 3.399 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 84 40

370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 3.399 5.039 Rural Major Collector L 85 18.0 40 6150 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 5.039 6.997 Rural Major Collector L 86 21.6 40 5200 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 6.997 7.070 Rural Major Collector L 86 40

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-16

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

(Fed) 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 7.070 8.391 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 92 44 3650

102900 CLEARWATER LN 0.000 0.134 Urban Local L 97 22 650 102900 CLEARWATER LN 0.134 0.512 Urban Local L 97 6.0 22 221700 CLEVELAND ST 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 18 601000 CLOVERDALE RD 0.000 3.276 Rural Minor Arterial L 98 18.0 24 2000 528300 COAST GUARD STATION RD 0.000 0.112 Rural Local L 83 8.0 18 200 163000 COBURG BOTTOM LP 0.000 0.181 Rural Local L 96 30 750 163000 COBURG BOTTOM LP 0.181 0.530 Rural Local L 96 30 163000 COBURG BOTTOM LP 0.530 2.865 Rural Local L 95 26 550 163095 COBURG BOTTOM LP (Y) 2.790 2.865 Rural Local L 96 25 164300 COBURG INDUST WAY 0.000 0.766 Urban Minor Collector L 92 20.0 42 5300 150000 COBURG RD 3.314 3.500 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 30 7300 150000 COBURG RD 3.500 4.050 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 11.0 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.050 4.350 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 30 8150 150000 COBURG RD 4.350 4.430 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.430 4.700 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.700 4.836 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.836 4.901 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.901 4.930 Rural Minor Arterial L 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.930 4.970 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 30 7400 150000 COBURG RD 4.970 6.601 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 24.0 30 6600 150000 COBURG RD 6.601 6.870 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 30 6150 150000 COBURG RD 6.870 7.000 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 24.0 36 7150 150000 COBURG RD 7.000 7.366 Urban Minor Arterial L 95 44 6200 150000 COBURG RD 7.366 7.416 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 80 30 3500

150000 COBURG RD 7.416 8.784 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

80 30 2500

150000 COBURG RD 8.784 12.883 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

75 28 1650

161000 COBURG RD NO 0.000 0.218 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

89 30 2550

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-17

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

161000 COBURG RD NO 0.218 1.820 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

89 20.8 30 2050

161000 COBURG RD NO 1.820 4.115 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

88 27.8 26 1550

104000 COLE WAY 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 100 17.0 32 104070 COLE WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 98 32 162800 COLEMAN RD 0.000 0.909 Rural Local L 83 20 420 182700 COLLEGE VIEW RD 0.000 0.443 Rural Local L 99 27.0 36 900 317100 COLLIN CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 60 15.0 18 330600 COLUMBINE ST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 90 9.5 32 325700 COMMODORE ST 0.000 0.083 Urban Local L 92 15.0 28 313600 COMPTON LN 0.000 0.250 Rural Local L 19 507800 CONDON CR RD 0.000 0.912 Rural Local L 60 11.5 20 70 272100 CONIFER CT 0.000 0.383 Rural Local R 76 24.0 24 192700 CONLEY RD 0.000 0.664 Rural Local L 79 18 110 403900 CONRAD RD 0.000 0.296 Rural Local L 86 8.5 18 450 435400 COOK RD 0.000 1.547 Rural Local R 83 6.3 18 120 167100 COOK'S GARDEN RD 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 89 5.3 16 222300 COOPER AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 66 10.3 18 132800 COPPING ST 0.000 0.340 Urban Local L 93 15.0 32 310 355200 CORAL ST 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 85 9.0 26 131800 CORLISS LN 0.000 0.185 Urban Local L 95 36 750 140800 CORNWALL AVE 0.000 0.286 Urban Local L 89 11.0 26 1550 140850 CORNWALL AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 88 26 140890 CORNWALL AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 88 26 316400 CORONA ST 0.000 0.141 Urban Local L 89 18.0 28 80 316430 CORONA ST CUL 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 90 28 155400 CORRAL CT 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 93 11.8 28 155200 CORRAL DR 0.000 0.175 Urban Local L 92 9.0 28 380 382000 CORY RD 0.000 1.678 Rural Local L 89 5.0 22 170 263500 COTTAGE GROVE

CEMETERY RD 0.000 0.210 Urban Local

L 98 11.5 20 110

273000 COTTAGE GROVE RES RD 0.000 4.583 Rural Minor Collector R 80 20.8 24 650 260000 COTTAGE GROVE-LORANE 0.820 1.174 Urban Major Collector L 89 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-18

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

RD 260000 COTTAGE GROVE-LORANE

RD 1.174 4.980 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 89 19.2 30 2250

260000 COTTAGE GROVE-LORANE RD

4.980 12.654 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M

77 26 600

150100 COTTONWOOD AVE 0.000 0.263 Urban Local L 73 16.0 26 380 150105 COTTONWOOD AVE (Y) 0.000 0.014 Urban Local L 98 18 409100 COUGAR LN 0.000 0.700 Rural Local L 63 24 271100 COUGAR MT LN 0.000 0.300 Rural Local R 96 6.3 20 158800 COUNTY FARM RD 0.000 0.700 Urban Local L 83 30 2950 158800 COUNTY FARM RD 0.700 1.152 Urban Local L 84 24 800 158805 COUNTY FARM RD (Y) 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 80 30 381000 COX BUTTE RD 0.000 3.467 Rural Local L 83 7.8 20 220 408400 COYOTE CR RD 0.000 0.400 Rural Local L 22 408400 COYOTE CR RD 0.400 0.508 Rural Local L 92 15.0 22 160 125200 CREST DR 0.000 0.360 Urban Major Collector R 96 22 800 125200 CREST DR 0.360 0.623 Urban Major Collector R 97 22 1350 125200 CREST DR 0.623 0.873 Urban Major Collector R 97 22 1300 157500 CRIMSON AVE 0.000 0.067 Urban Local L 98 12.0 32 319900 CROCKER RD 0.000 0.580 Urban Minor Collector L 95 15.0 30 750 151700 CROSBY AVE 0.000 0.052 Urban Local L 92 8.0 20 165500 CROSS ROADS LN EAST 0.000 0.905 Rural Local L 74 20 70 165000 CROSS ROADS LN WEST 0.000 1.027 Rural Local L 83 20 150 165000 CROSS ROADS LN WEST 1.027 1.045 Rural Local L 18 165000 CROSS ROADS LN WEST 1.045 1.225 Rural Local L 10 427700 CROSSLEY LN 0.000 0.300 Rural Local L 68 24 427700 CROSSLEY LN 0.300 0.354 Rural Local L 87 24 423410 CROW RD 0.000 0.658 Rural Local L 95 24 270 423400 CROW RD 0.658 0.820 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 87 34 2600

423400 CROW RD 0.820 1.549 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

84 20.8 30

423400 CROW RD 1.549 2.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

84 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-19

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

423400 CROW RD 2.000 3.338 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

86 30 1850

423400 CROW RD 3.338 5.332 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

89 28.8 30 1450

423400 CROW RD 5.332 7.837 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

90 24.0 30 1250

423400 CROW RD 7.837 8.627 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

92 30 1300

252500 CURRIN BLVD 0.000 0.277 Urban Local L 84 10.5 16 160 252400 CURRIN CONN 0.000 0.071 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 17.0 22 2000 140100 CUSTER CT 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 97 9.0 20 149700 CYPRESS CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 88 26 186300 D ST 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 56 6.5 22 320000 DAFFODIL CT 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 95 11.0 26 322100 DAHLIA LN 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 94 11.0 32 323100 DAHLIA LN 0.000 0.330 Urban Local L 95 17.0 28 140 329100 DAHLIA LN 0.000 0.142 Urban Local L 94 10.0 26 323110 DAHLIA LN CUL 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 92 32 323120 DAHLIA LN CUL 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 93 32 523300 DAHLIN RD 0.000 0.260 Rural Local L 100 5.0 16 158900 DALE AVE 0.000 0.195 Urban Local L 96 11.5 36 1400 211000 DALE KUNI RD 0.000 1.430 Rural Minor Collector L 89 19.8 24 460 386100 DALEWOOD DR 0.000 0.286 Rural Local L 86 22 328100 DALEWOOD ST 0.000 0.143 Urban Local L 96 8.0 26 137100 DALTON DR 0.000 0.085 Urban Local L 92 14.0 28 328700 DALTON DR 0.000 0.121 Urban Local L 96 11.0 25 311300 DANE LN 0.000 1.318 Rural Local L 64 8.6 22 650 602000 DANSTROM RD 0.000 0.135 Rural Minor Collector L 80 10.5 20 210 602000 DANSTROM RD 0.135 0.150 Rural Local L 80 20 602000 DANSTROM RD 0.150 0.527 Rural Local L 85 20 120 214000 DANVILLE RD 0.000 0.525 Rural Local L 77 13.5 24 157900 DAPHNE ST 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 96 11.0 26 164200 DARAY ST 0.000 0.012 Urban Local L 75 36 164200 DARAY ST 0.012 0.050 Urban Local L 75 36

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-20

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

534300 DARLINGS LP 0.000 0.500 Urban Local L 89 12.3 20 260 216000 DAVISSON RD 0.000 3.729 Rural Local L 77 22 600 615700 DEAD MOUNTAIN RD 0.000 0.282 Rural Local L 6.0 15 152900 DEADMOND'S FERRY RD 0.000 0.714 Urban Local L ~75 20 1250 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 0.000 1.380 Rural Minor Collector M 77 18.0 24 330 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 1.380 4.155 Rural Minor Collector M 99 24 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 4.155 5.410 Rural Minor Collector M 95 21.3 24 230 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 5.410 7.180 Rural Minor Collector M 81 9.5 20 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 7.180 7.300 Rural Minor Collector M 83 24 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 7.300 8.507 Rural Minor Collector M 15 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 8.507 8.968 Rural Minor Collector M 20 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 8.968 9.989 Rural Minor Collector M 9.0 15 50 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 9.989 11.723 Rural Minor Collector M 3.0 14 20 514500 DEADWOOD LP RD 0.000 0.730 Rural Local L 5.0 18 10 317300 DEAN AVE 0.000 0.430 Urban Local L 97 11.0 28 650 317300 DEAN AVE 0.430 0.700 Urban Local L 88 16.0 16 317350 DEAN AVE CUL 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 92 33 317370 DEAN AVE CUL 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 98 32 217800 DEBERRY RD 0.000 2.150 Rural Local M 79 15.5 20 550 217800 DEBERRY RD 2.150 2.775 Rural Local R 11 153100 DEBRA DR 0.000 0.162 Urban Local L 100 22.0 36 270 184900 DEBRA DR SO 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 96 11.0 26 750 105800 DEERHORN RD 0.000 3.680 Rural Minor Collector M 77 14.8 22 1350 105800 DEERHORN RD 3.680 7.206 Rural Minor Collector M 85 10.1 20 550 105800 DEERHORN RD 7.206 7.760 Rural Local L 85 20 210 106100 DEERHORN RD CUL 0.000 0.025 Rural Local R 11 20 188800 DEERWOOD DR 0.000 1.168 Rural Local M 88 22 100 187700 DEL MONTE AVE 0.000 0.213 Rural Local L 100 28 187600 DEL RIO ST 0.000 0.096 Rural Local L 100 34 220300 DELIGHT VALLEY SCH RD (N) 0.000 1.108 Rural Local L 97 13.5 22 850 220400 DELIGHT VALLEY SCH RD (S) 0.000 0.724 Rural Local L 98 16.5 22 360 180400 DELROSE AVE 0.000 0.240 Urban Local L 100 10.0 36 260 180450 DELROSE AVE CUL 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 100 32 154400 DELROSE AVE EAST 0.000 0.078 Urban Local L 100 9.0 32

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-21

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

153700 DELROSE DR 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 100 20.0 36 174000 DELTA HWY SO 0.000 1.804 Urban Principal Arterial L 75 84 32900 174005 DELTA HWY SO NE RAMP

#11 0.000 0.195 Urban Principal Arterial

L 99 42 10200

174006 DELTA HWY SO NWW RAMP #20

0.000 0.204 Urban Principal Arterial L

86 42 4150

174004 DELTA HWY SO SE RAMP #40

0.000 0.183 Urban Principal Arterial L

99 26 3400

174003 DELTA HWY SO SW RAMP #31

0.000 0.245 Urban Principal Arterial L

100 26 18850

132300 DELTA ST 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 84 11.5 32 400800 DEMMING RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Minor Collector R 65 9.0 20 1050 400800 DEMMING RD 1.000 1.120 Rural Minor Collector R 71 22 650 400800 DEMMING RD 1.120 1.136 Rural Minor Collector R 56 20 400800 DEMMING RD 1.136 1.160 Rural Local L 56 20 400800 DEMMING RD 1.160 1.957 Rural Local L 68 20 650 605700 DERY RD 0.000 0.245 Rural Local L 97 9.5 20 161200 DEVON AVE 0.000 0.066 Urban Local L 97 28 611400 DEXTER RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Major Collector L 74 23.0 24 1300 611400 DEXTER RD 1.500 2.146 Rural Major Collector L 69 30 900 611405 DEXTER RD (Y) 0.000 0.097 Rural Major Collector L 68 16 611500 DEXTER RD CONN 0.000 0.023 Rural Local L 87 20 104500 DIAMOND ST 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 88 36 104900 DIAMOND ST 0.000 0.056 Urban Local L 86 17.0 36 183800 DIAMOND ST 0.000 0.119 Urban Local L 98 13.0 28 183880 DIAMOND ST CUL 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 97 28 325900 DIBBLEE LN 0.000 0.210 Urban Major Collector L 90 4.8 22 340 188500 DILLARD ACCESS RD 0.000 0.874 Rural Local L 62 22 390 186900 DILLARD LP 0.000 0.447 Rural Local L 85 20 80 187000 DILLARD RD 0.000 3.850 Rural Minor Collector R 85 17.5 22 1000 187000 DILLARD RD 3.850 4.016 Rural Minor Collector R 85 22 189000 DILLEY LN 0.000 0.557 Rural Local L 87 22 370 130700 DIVISION PL 0.000 0.068 Urban Local L 65 20 103800 DIXIE DR 0.000 0.154 Urban Local L 85 16.0 32 170

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-22

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

408800 DOANE RD 0.000 3.117 Rural Local R 78 13.1 22 240 352000 DODSON CT 0.000 0.076 Rural Local L 83 22 175600 DON JUAN AVE 0.000 0.066 Urban Local L 96 11.0 36 101600 DONDEA ST 0.000 0.210 Urban Local L 100 14.0 36 460 101620 DONDEA ST (CUL) 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 101640 DONDEA ST (CUL) 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 101660 DONDEA ST (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 100 32 328500 DONEGAL ST 0.000 0.222 Urban Local L 93 13.0 36 230 328560 DONEGAL ST CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 90 32 195800 DONNA RD 0.000 1.527 Rural Local L 77 22 550 195895 DONNA RD (Y) 0.000 0.067 Rural Local L 97 14 361200 DORSEY LN 0.000 1.542 Rural Minor Collector L 90 16.4 22 1100 327300 DOVER DR 0.000 0.202 Urban Local L 94 11.0 26 100 327360 DOVER DR CUL 0.000 0.047 Urban Local L 94 28 106300 DOWDY LN 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 89 12.0 20 163800 DOWNING ST 0.000 0.134 Urban Local L 95 36 163850 DOWNING ST (CUL) 0.000 0.041 Urban Local L 91 28 316200 DOYLE ST 0.000 0.141 Urban Local L 92 19.0 28 100 316240 DOYLE ST CUL 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 85 32 318900 DUBLIN AVE 0.000 0.249 Urban Local L 91 12.0 28 225400 DUGAN LN 0.000 0.893 Rural Local L 78 9.5 20 180 188300 DUKE ST 0.000 0.117 Urban Local L 100 14.0 36 425100 DUKHOBAR RD 0.000 0.080 Rural Local R 50 14.0 20 90 425100 DUKHOBAR RD 0.080 0.830 Rural Local R 16 40 425100 DUKHOBAR RD 0.830 0.835 Rural Local L 66 20 425100 DUKHOBAR RD 0.835 1.435 Rural Local L 66 20 100 153600 DUMAS DR 0.000 0.242 Urban Local L 100 18.0 32 230 153620 DUMAS DR (CUL) 0.000 0.019 Urban Local L 100 71 153680 DUMAS DR (CUL) 0.000 0.046 Urban Local L 100 32 503700 DUNCAN ISLAND RD 0.000 1.023 Rural Local L 18.0 13 40 617200 DUNNING RD 0.000 0.256 Rural Local R 86 18 617200 DUNNING RD 0.256 1.608 Rural Local R 86 16.5 18 120 327800 DURHAM AVE 0.000 0.345 Urban Local L 91 18.0 33 110700 EAGLE ROCK DR 0.000 0.110 Rural Local M 92 10.0 24

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-23

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

110100 EAGLE ROCK PL 0.000 0.245 Rural Local R 92 10.0 24 190200 EAGLES AERIE RD 0.000 0.220 Rural Local R 86 10.5 24 105400 EAST CEDAR FLAT RD 0.000 0.390 Rural Local L 53 8.0 18 220 105400 EAST CEDAR FLAT RD 0.390 0.594 Rural Local R 49 14 503000 EAST MAPLETON RD 0.000 0.317 Rural Minor Collector L 81 30 1000 503000 EAST MAPLETON RD 0.317 1.000 Rural Minor Collector M 77 13.0 22 390 503000 EAST MAPLETON RD 1.000 3.950 Rural Minor Collector M 74 11.5 22 503000 EAST MAPLETON RD 3.950 5.132 Rural Minor Collector M 70 18 106800 EASTON LN 0.000 0.137 Rural Local L 94 12.8 18 70 408500 EASY ACRES DR 0.000 1.196 Rural Local R 81 12.0 24 110 606800 EDENVALE RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Minor Collector R 76 4.5 18 550 606800 EDENVALE RD 1.000 2.000 Rural Minor Collector R 81 8.5 22 606800 EDENVALE RD 2.000 3.273 Rural Minor Collector L 94 9.9 24 800 194700 EDGEHILL RD 0.000 0.118 Rural Local R 77 22 371400 EDGEWATER DR 0.000 0.656 Rural Local L 94 14.0 22 330 184400 EL BONITA PL 0.000 0.056 Urban Local L 98 12.0 28 188900 EL CAMINO ST 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 100 32 188700 EL CENTRO AVE 0.000 0.124 Rural Local L 100 32 187900 EL MANOR AVE 0.000 0.169 Rural Local L 100 36 187800 EL ROBLE AVE 0.000 0.207 Rural Local L 100 28 189800 ELDON SCHAFER DR 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 57 15.5 42 1500 189800 ELDON SCHAFER DR 0.080 0.171 Rural Local L 89 26 172300 ELIZABETH AVE 0.000 0.196 Rural Local L 20 110600 ELK CR RD 0.000 0.378 Rural Local R 97 16.3 16 100 137200 ELKAY DR 0.000 0.888 Urban Local L 92 11.6 26 1100 429800 ELLMAKER RD 0.000 1.114 Rural Minor Collector L 100 15.8 28 2000 136100 ELM DR 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 85 17.5 24 230 136300 ELM DR 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 94 18.5 28 200 138400 EMERALD PARK DRIVE 0.000 0.115 Urban Local L 93 28 429700 ENGLAND LP 0.000 0.370 Rural Local L 99 15.0 24 219700 ENGLAND RD 0.000 0.590 Rural Local M 59 9.8 20 130 343500 ENID RD EAST 0.000 0.912 Urban Minor Collector L 61 18.0 26 3000 343200 ENID RD WEST 0.228 0.403 Urban Local L 87 21.0 24 430 607500 ENTERPRISE RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Minor Collector L 91 7.0 32 1350

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-24

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

607500 ENTERPRISE RD 0.500 1.050 Rural Minor Collector L 91 2.3 36 1250 607500 ENTERPRISE RD 1.050 2.000 Rural Minor Collector R 83 16.5 25 850 607500 ENTERPRISE RD 2.000 2.960 Rural Minor Collector R 82 12.5 22 607500 ENTERPRISE RD 2.960 4.883 Rural Minor Collector L 78 10.0 20 460 406700 ERDMAN WAY 0.000 0.258 Rural Local L 75 24 80 426000 ERICKSON RD 0.000 1.540 Rural Minor Collector R 74 24 360 426000 ERICKSON RD 1.540 1.664 Rural Minor Collector R 45 22 330 194000 ERMI BEE RD 0.000 0.363 Rural Local R 81 22 130 130900 ESCALANTE ST 0.000 0.164 Urban Local L 84 10.2 26 130950 ESCALANTE ST 0.164 0.249 Urban Local L 94 26 156100 ESTATE CT 0.000 0.037 Urban Local L 93 13.0 26 141100 EVERGREEN DR 0.000 0.312 Urban Local L 91 7.0 18 320 144300 EVERGREEN DR 0.000 0.086 Urban Local L 91 10.0 22 144400 EVERGREEN DR 0.000 0.015 Urban Local L 90 10.5 28 432600 EVERS RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 86 22 260 432600 EVERS RD 0.500 0.939 Rural Local L 84 13.0 22 210 327100 EXETER AVE 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 85 13.0 25 150900 FAIRVIEW DR 0.000 0.177 Urban Local L 98 10.0 28 230 137300 FAIRWAY DR 0.000 0.141 Urban Local L 98 12.7 22 250 401300 FALCON DR 0.000 0.226 Rural Local L 89 26 529500 FALCON ST 0.000 0.132 Urban Local R 75 3.8 16 432000 FAULHABER RD 0.000 0.521 Rural Local L 72 22 190 122900 FAWN HILLS DR 0.000 0.355 Rural Local L 90 21 40 105200 FAWN WAY 0.000 0.153 Rural Local L 61 10.5 12 403800 FAWVER DR 0.000 0.104 Rural Local L 78 13.0 22 50 324100 FAYETTE AVE 0.000 0.178 Urban Local L 95 13.0 32 343300 FEDERAL LN 0.000 0.173 Urban Local L 80 20 326500 FEDERAL LN 0.030 0.273 Urban Local L 87 3.4 18 700 350800 FERGUESON RD 0.000 3.420 Rural Minor Collector L 97 29.0 24 600 350800 FERGUESON RD 3.420 6.320 Rural Minor Collector R 96 18.7 26 650 350800 FERGUESON RD 6.320 8.150 Rural Minor Collector L 68 9.2 22 350800 FERGUESON RD 8.150 9.260 Rural Minor Collector L 68 10.5 18 350800 FERGUESON RD 9.260 10.700 Rural Minor Collector R 4.5 15 255400 FERN AVE 0.000 0.111 Rural Local L 79 7.0 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-25

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

325400 FERNDALE DR 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 97 30 1150 325400 FERNDALE DR 0.060 0.648 Urban Local L 93 10.0 20 1250 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 83 20 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 0.140 1.766 Rural Local L 4.0 14 50 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 1.766 1.787 Rural Local L 98 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 1.787 1.826 Rural Local L 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 1.826 1.850 Rural Local L 98 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 1.850 3.787 Rural Local L 10.0 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 3.787 3.805 Rural Local L 100 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 3.805 4.784 Rural Local L 14 432800 FIELDS RD 0.000 0.383 Rural Local L 82 7.8 22 611300 FIR AVE 0.000 0.048 Rural Local L 80 10.0 20 427300 FIR BUTTE RD 0.000 2.706 Rural Minor Collector R 64 22 800 401200 FIR GROVE LN 0.000 0.272 Rural Local L 87 11.5 24 500 198900 FIR RIDGE RD 0.000 0.121 Rural Local R 80 14.0 22 433100 FIR ST 0.000 0.200 Rural Local L 95 20 427600 FIR VIEW ST 0.000 0.044 Rural Local L 73 19 50 276500 FIRE CLAY RD 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 91 16 276500 FIRE CLAY RD 0.140 2.144 Rural Local M 10.0 19 10 439300 FIRE RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Local R 82 9.0 18 60 439300 FIRE RD 1.000 1.383 Rural Local R 82 6.3 16 191500 FIRTH AVE 0.000 0.156 Urban Local L 83 13.5 36 617000 FISH HATCHERY RD 0.000 1.650 Urban Local L 77 25.9 26 500 428600 FISHER RD 0.000 1.120 Rural Minor Collector R 69 30 2800 428600 FISHER RD 1.120 1.200 Rural Minor Collector R 69 22 2850 435600 FISK RD 0.000 0.692 Rural Local R 86 5.5 18 140 514100 FIVE RIVERS RD 0.000 1.620 Rural Local R 75 20 514100 FIVE RIVERS RD 1.620 5.700 Rural Local R 75 12.3 20 180 160000 FLAMINGO AVE 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 94 24 390 160000 FLAMINGO AVE 0.076 0.259 Urban Local L 93 8.0 22 607900 FLAT HEAD RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 96 16 607900 FLAT HEAD RD 0.050 0.316 Rural Local L 10 407400 FLECK RD 0.000 2.512 Rural Minor Collector L 87 13.5 25 700 183000 FLORAL HILL DR 0.400 0.740 Urban Local L 98 18 380

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-26

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

213100 FLORENCE AVE 0.000 0.720 Rural Local L 82 20 160 415400 FLORENCE RD 0.000 0.790 Rural Local L 95 10.0 22 120 105500 FLOWERDALE DR 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 73 5.5 24 402500 FOREST VIEW DR 0.000 0.384 Rural Local R 5.5 16 529600 FOULWEATHER ST 0.000 0.068 Urban Local R 76 11.8 16 80 402000 FOUNTAIN RD 0.000 0.272 Rural Local L 84 10.3 20 90 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 0.000 4.511 Rural Minor Collector R 79 24 240 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 4.511 6.100 Rural Minor Collector R 60 24 400 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 6.100 6.442 Rural Minor Collector R 80 30 950 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 6.442 8.922 Rural Major Collector R 80 30 440 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 8.922 8.932 Rural Major Collector R 80 30 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 8.932 8.954 Rural Major Collector R 81 30 650 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 8.954 9.329 Rural Major Collector R 81 30 330800 FOXGLOVE AVE 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 95 12.0 28 188200 FRANK PARRISH RD 0.000 0.943 Rural Local L 6.0 16 130 182500 FRANKLIN BLVD EAST 0.000 1.121 Urban Major Collector L 100 26.8 28 4800 383600 FRANKLIN RD 0.000 2.522 Rural Minor Collector R 90 16.0 22 500 383000 FRANKLIN SCHOOL RD 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 12 23 135100 FREMONT AVE 0.000 0.295 Urban Local L 51 19.7 26 320 189100 FREMONT AVE 0.000 0.219 Rural Local L 69 20 140 163300 FUNKE RD 0.000 0.900 Rural Local L 73 21 250 315500 FUTURA ST 0.000 0.098 Urban Local L 92 12.0 36 50 171000 GAME FARM RD NO 0.610 1.690 Urban Major Collector L 80 24 7550 152800 GAME FARM RD SO 0.000 0.910 Urban Major Collector L 76 24 10150 152800 GAME FARM RD SO 0.910 0.917 Urban Major Collector L 76 39 152800 GAME FARM RD SO 0.917 1.110 Urban Local L 39 2850 152800 GAME FARM RD SO 1.110 1.458 Urban Local L 22 2650 171600 GAME FARM RD WEST 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 16 7450 189200 GARDEN VALLEY RD 0.000 0.130 Rural Local L 99 12.5 30 100 328300 GARDENIA PL 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 89 28 322800 GARDENIA WAY 0.000 0.204 Urban Local L 80 8.0 28 255500 GAROUTTE RD 0.000 2.507 Rural Minor Collector R 70 12.2 20 300 109700 GATE CR RD NO 0.000 2.417 Rural Minor Collector M 84 19.0 22 330 109600 GATE CR RD SO 0.000 0.172 Rural Local L 55 11.5 20 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-27

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

607600 GAUPP LN 0.000 0.283 Rural Local L 91 7.0 16 427400 GENTRY ST 0.000 0.273 Rural Local L 93 19 130 386400 GEORGETOWN RD 0.000 0.274 Rural Local L 88 22 100 425600 GIBRALTER LP 0.000 0.592 Rural Local M 51 22 130 217700 GIBSON LN 0.000 0.747 Rural Local L 0 7.8 20 130 157100 GILHAM RD 1.673 2.178 Urban Local L 97 15.0 22 900 157130 GILHAM RD CUL #1 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 97 32 157140 GILHAM RD CUL #2 0.000 0.048 Urban Local L 98 30 157160 GILHAM RD CUL #3 0.000 0.048 Urban Local L 98 30 157180 GILHAM RD CUL #4 0.000 0.048 Urban Local L 98 30 244500 GILLISPIE RD 0.000 0.215 Rural Local R 67 9.0 20 40 122000 GIMPL HILL RD 0.000 0.576 Rural Minor Collector R 76 26 1400 122000 GIMPL HILL RD 0.576 1.131 Rural Minor Collector R 76 26 122000 GIMPL HILL RD 1.131 3.279 Rural Minor Collector R 76 26 122000 GIMPL HILL RD 3.279 4.808 Rural Minor Collector R 75 18.8 29 490 121600 GIMPL WAY 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 82 14 121605 GIMPL WAY (Y) 0.000 0.034 Rural Local L 94 22 320200 GINGER AVE 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 97 16.0 32 322700 GINKGO WAY 0.000 0.152 Urban Local L 96 19.0 32 270200 GLAISYER HILL RD 0.000 0.578 Rural Local L 72 12.0 24 529000 GLENADA RD 0.000 0.370 Rural Local R 61 30.5 24 750 529000 GLENADA RD 0.370 1.073 Rural Local R 70 4.5 20 529400 GLENADA RD EAST 0.000 0.160 Rural Local R 80 11.3 20 90 120100 GLENFIDDICH WAY 0.000 0.206 Rural Local L 18 531100 GLORIA GAYLE WAY 0.000 0.349 Urban Local L 87 13.0 22 531120 GLORIA GAYLE WAY CUL 0.000 0.094 Urban Local L 89 20 195100 GOATS RD 0.000 0.810 Rural Local L 76 16 150 428200 GOBLE LN 0.000 0.120 Rural Local R 15 60 428200 GOBLE LN 0.120 0.250 Rural Local R 15 222400 GODDARD LN 0.000 0.720 Rural Local L 73 10.0 22 140 363600 GOLDSON RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Minor Collector R 76 20 340 363600 GOLDSON RD 0.500 1.556 Rural Minor Collector R 77 20 220 328800 GOLF COURSE RD 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 88 16.0 24 185400 GONYEA RD 0.000 0.595 Rural Major Collector L 89 22.2 58 1700

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-28

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

185401 GONYEA RD NE RAMP #11 0.000 0.155 Urban Minor Arterial R 95 26 2050 185402 GONYEA RD SE RAMP #40 0.000 0.183 Urban Minor Arterial R 86 26 1400 372000 GOODMAN RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 59 20 800 372000 GOODMAN RD 0.500 1.030 Rural Local L 92 20 260 174201 GOODPASTURE IS RD E NE

#10 0.000 0.190 Urban Principal Arterial

L 91 26 6150

174401 GOODPASTURE IS RD SWW #30

0.000 0.323 Urban Principal Arterial L

87 26 4000

109400 GOODPASTURE RD 0.060 3.000 Rural Minor Collector M 78 31.0 22 550 109400 GOODPASTURE RD 3.000 5.030 Rural Minor Collector M 75 25.0 24 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 0.000 0.183 Rural Minor Collector R 71 20 750 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 0.183 1.890 Rural Minor Collector R 71 17.0 20 550 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 1.890 2.286 Rural Minor Collector R 20 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 2.286 2.314 Rural Minor Collector R 20 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 2.314 9.034 Rural Minor Collector M 20 50 527500 GRAND AVE 0.000 0.227 Rural Local L 98 13.3 16 106500 GRANDVIEW DR 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 89 11.0 22 407900 GRAY RD 0.000 0.190 Rural Local L 81 4.3 22 50 407900 GRAY RD 0.190 0.246 Rural Local L 96 20 272500 GREEN ACRES LP 0.000 0.411 Rural Local L 82 11.0 22 427000 GREEN HILL RD 0.000 0.982 Rural Major Collector M 81 13.0 22 427000 GREEN HILL RD 0.982 1.358 Rural Major Collector L 81 22 270 427000 GREEN HILL RD 1.358 1.542 Rural Major Collector L 77 36 2950 427000 GREEN HILL RD 1.542 2.818 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 27.5 26 2950 427000 GREEN HILL RD 2.818 3.820 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 35.0 26 3850 427000 GREEN HILL RD 3.820 5.072 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 37.0 26 4200 427000 GREEN HILL RD 5.072 5.815 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 22.0 24 2600 427020 GREEN HILL RD 5.815 5.840 Rural Minor Collector L 93 24 427020 GREEN HILL RD 5.840 6.080 Rural Minor Collector L 93 44 427020 GREEN HILL RD 6.080 6.805 Rural Minor Collector L 93 24 427020 GREEN HILL RD 6.805 7.917 Rural Minor Collector L 0 24 427020 GREEN HILL RD 7.917 8.310 Rural Local L 0 30 427020 GREEN HILL RD 8.310 8.380 Rural Local L 0 30 700 427020 GREEN HILL RD 8.380 10.136 Rural Local L 87 13.0 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-29

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

427100 GREEN OAKS DR 0.000 0.781 Rural Local L 84 24 270 407600 GREEN RIDGE DR 0.000 0.702 Rural Local L 90 6.3 20 180 215800 GREEN VALLEY ST 0.000 0.260 Rural Local L 89 20 650 122100 GREENBRIAR DR 0.000 0.645 Rural Local L 58 22 191800 GREENBRIAR ST 0.000 0.066 Urban Local L 97 16.5 28 330700 GREENFIELD AVE 0.000 0.290 Urban Local L 95 9.5 26 1050 330700 GREENFIELD AVE 0.290 0.337 Urban Local L 86 28 700 142100 GREENLEAF AVE 0.000 0.126 Urban Local L 87 7.0 20 160 153500 GREENVALE DR 0.000 0.258 Urban Local L 74 16.0 26 120 330200 GREENWICH AVE 0.000 0.129 Urban Local L 95 10.0 30 108400 GREENWOOD DR 0.000 1.376 Rural Local L 96 14.1 22 250 217100 GREENWOOD ST 0.000 0.261 Rural Local L 89 20 250 317400 GREENWOOD ST & CUL 0.057 0.447 Urban Local L 94 13.0 36 150 317460 GREENWOOD ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 93 9.0 27 317450 GREENWOOD ST CUL 'B' 0.000 0.046 Urban Local L 93 10.0 28 133700 GREG WAY 0.000 0.271 Urban Local L 65 16.0 24 170 351000 GRIMES ROAD 0.000 0.911 Rural Local L 80 20 70 326100 GRIZZLY AVE 0.000 0.118 Urban Local L 85 19.0 30 160300 GROUSE ST 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 90 10.5 29 133100 GROVE ST 0.000 0.164 Urban Local L 94 14.7 25 1000 133100 GROVE ST 0.164 0.528 Urban Minor Collector L 81 14.0 34 1850 133100 GROVE ST 0.528 0.640 Urban Local L 88 15.0 32 1200 153400 GROVEDALE DR 0.000 0.080 Urban Local L 74 14.0 26 650 503500 HADSALL CR RD 0.000 0.715 Rural Local L 87 14.8 24 160 363100 HAGER RD 0.000 1.194 Rural Local L 72 14 80 264600 HALDERMAN RD 0.000 0.450 Rural Local L 61 15 210 424000 HALDERSON RD 0.000 1.395 Rural Local L 81 20 140 434400 HALE RD 0.000 0.167 Rural Local L 96 32 110 434400 HALE RD 0.167 0.888 Rural Local L 4.5 13 362500 HALL RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Minor Collector L 64 14.5 22 550 362500 HALL RD 1.500 1.990 Rural Minor Collector R 80 22 280 362500 HALL RD 1.990 3.820 Rural Minor Collector R 100 13.5 22 120 362500 HALL RD 3.820 4.560 Rural Minor Collector R 83 7.3 22 140 362500 HALL RD 4.560 5.880 Rural Minor Collector R 5.6 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-30

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

362500 HALL RD 5.880 6.800 Rural Minor Collector R 57 6.9 16 362500 HALL RD 6.800 7.158 Rural Minor Collector R 81 20 250 343100 HALLETT ST 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 88 22 132500 HAMILTON AVE 0.000 0.265 Urban Local L 94 20.0 32 90 213200 HAMM RD 0.000 2.000 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 48 22 450

213200 HAMM RD 2.000 3.600 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

66 22

213200 HAMM RD 3.600 4.360 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

73 22

213200 HAMM RD 4.360 5.607 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M

58 12.6 22 460

335100 HAMPSHIRE LN 0.000 0.110 Urban Local L 17.0 32 186500 HAMPTON RD 0.000 1.270 Rural Local L 79 22 650 610600 HANNA RD 0.000 0.447 Rural Local R 43 5.3 18 70 138700 HANSEN LN & KNAPP LN 0.000 0.460 Urban Local L 89 8.9 20 1150 138700 HANSEN LN & KNAPP LN 0.460 0.625 Urban Local L 88 26 100400 HARBOR DR 0.000 0.903 Urban Local L 100 18.0 36 1150 614200 HARBOR DR 0.000 0.108 Rural Local L 96 22 160 100425 HARBOR DR (CUL) 0.000 0.015 Urban Local L 100 36 100440 HARBOR DR (CUL) 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 100 32 100450 HARBOR DR (CUL) 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 100 32 526150 HARBOR VISTA RD 0.000 0.293 Urban Local L 81 20 526100 HARBOR VISTA RD S 0.000 0.066 Urban Local L 85 5.5 20 142200 HARDY AVE 0.000 0.210 Urban Local L 93 8.0 20 142200 HARDY AVE 0.210 0.318 Urban Local L 86 24 163600 HARLOW RD 1.035 1.069 Urban Minor Arterial L 73 60 163600 HARLOW RD 1.069 1.090 Urban Minor Arterial L 73 60 163600 HARLOW RD 1.828 1.916 Urban Minor Arterial L 91 66 18250 182300 HARMON LN 0.000 0.137 Rural Local L 88 18 312500 HARPER RD 0.000 0.460 Rural Local L 85 20 150 272600 HARRIS DR 0.000 0.070 Rural Local R 88 22 272600 HARRIS DR 0.070 0.240 Rural Local R 81 11.0 22 141700 HARSHEL'S CT 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 86 24

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-31

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

153800 HARVEST LN 0.000 0.250 Urban Local L 18 7.0 18 950 153800 HARVEST LN 0.250 0.827 Rural Local L 48 13 134700 HARVEY AVE 0.000 0.137 Urban Local L 92 12.0 32 141300 HARVEY AVE 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 93 4.5 18 211400 HARVEY RD 0.000 0.260 Rural Minor Collector L 68 7.0 26 1100 211400 HARVEY RD 0.260 0.861 Rural Minor Collector L 80 3.0 26 211400 HARVEY RD 0.861 1.377 Urban Minor Collector L 80 26 2100 327400 HASTING ST 0.000 0.226 Urban Local L 95 15.0 33 420 327430 HASTING ST CUL 0.000 0.017 Urban Local L 95 70 327450 HASTING ST CUL 0.000 0.016 Urban Local L 95 70 134400 HATTON AVE 0.000 0.238 Urban Local L 90 13.0 18 90 139200 HATTON AVE 0.000 0.290 Urban Local L 90 10.5 28 600 142000 HATTON AVE 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 95 6.3 26 142400 HAWTHORNE AVE 0.000 0.115 Urban Local L 89 10.0 20 191600 HAYDEN BR CUL 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 97 11.0 32 163700 HAYDEN BR PL 0.000 0.227 Urban Local L 28 26 450 152600 HAYDEN BR RD 0.000 1.037 Urban Major Collector L 85 26 10500 181000 HAYDEN BR RD 0.000 1.452 Urban Minor Collector L 94 20 1600 155100 HAYDEN BR RD 0.000 0.128 Urban Local L 66 15.0 15 155100 HAYDEN BR RD 0.128 0.185 Urban Local L 86 36 194300 HAYDEN BR RD CUL #2 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 100 13.0 32 163500 HAYDEN BR WAY 0.000 0.142 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 5.0 66 26550 163500 HAYDEN BR WAY 0.142 0.612 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 66 19350 163500 HAYDEN BR WAY 0.612 0.721 Urban Major Collector L 89 66 9400 312000 HAYES LN 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 89 20 200 312000 HAYES LN 0.500 1.381 Rural Local L 70 18 312000 HAYES LN 1.381 1.745 Rural Local L 70 18 268000 HAZELTON RD 0.000 0.550 Rural Local L 84 11.5 18 230 314300 HEATHER OAK DR 0.000 0.476 Rural Local L 73 20 273100 HEBRON RD 0.000 0.224 Rural Local L 63 8.8 22 80 273105 HEBRON RD (Y) 0.000 0.035 Rural Local L 88 16 525000 HECETA BEACH RD 0.000 1.885 Urban Major Collector R 99 15.5 28 2450 333200 HELEN ST 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 97 19.0 30 134500 HEMLOCK ST 0.000 0.162 Urban Local L 85 17.0 32 360

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-32

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

135700 HEMLOCK ST 0.000 0.154 Urban Local L 82 13.3 26 181500 HENDERSON AVE NO 0.000 0.391 Urban Minor Collector L 92 9.0 22 1400 181600 HENDERSON AVE SO 0.000 0.131 Urban Local L 80 22 80 106400 HENDRICKS PARK RD 0.000 0.450 Rural Local L 57 6.5 20 270 601400 HENDRICKS RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 90 14.0 20 600 601400 HENDRICKS RD 0.500 0.940 Rural Local L 87 20 550 131700 HERITAGE AVE 0.000 0.318 Urban Local L 92 10.0 28 190 520900 HERMAN CAPE ROAD 0.000 1.065 Rural Local R 94 15.0 22 162500 HERMAN RD 0.000 1.930 Rural Local L 59 20 180 310900 HERMAN ST 0.000 0.053 Urban Local L 94 15.0 32 315400 HERMAN ST 0.000 0.276 Urban Local L 92 12.5 36 100 328200 HEYWOOD AVE 0.000 0.328 Urban Local L 82 9.5 34 328290 HEYWOOD AVE CUL 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 84 32 225800 HIAWASSEE WAY 0.000 0.078 Rural Local R 100 17.0 24 149600 HICKORY CT 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 74 26 187400 HIDEAWAY HILLS BR RD 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 81 18 187200 HIDEAWAY HILLS NO 0.000 0.512 Rural Local L 71 20 80 187300 HIDEAWAY HILLS SO 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 71 20 90 187300 HIDEAWAY HILLS SO 0.500 0.990 Rural Local L 76 20 345500 HIGH PASS RD 0.000 0.859 Urban Major Collector L 88 22.0 24 3700 345500 HIGH PASS RD 0.859 1.514 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 88 22.0 24 3700

345500 HIGH PASS RD 1.514 4.080 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

88 16.8 24 2500

345500 HIGH PASS RD 4.080 7.530 Rural Minor Collector R 90 18.1 22 950 345500 HIGH PASS RD 7.530 11.000 Rural Minor Collector M 69 8.3 20 345500 HIGH PASS RD 11.000 12.840 Rural Minor Collector M 5.7 15 345500 HIGH PASS RD 12.840 14.661 Rural Minor Collector M 12 345500 HIGH PASS RD 14.661 16.490 Rural Minor Collector M 15 345500 HIGH PASS RD 16.540 17.224 Rural Minor Collector M 87 18 100 345596 HIGH PASS RD (Y) 0.000 0.016 Rural Minor Collector L 84 18 345595 HIGH PASS RD (Y) 17.133 17.218 Rural Minor Collector L 84 21 345599 HIGH PASS RD (Y) 17.195 17.212 Rural Minor Collector L 86 18 615800 HIGH PRAIRIE LP 0.000 0.327 Rural Local L 76 9.0 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-33

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

615400 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 0.000 0.111 Urban Major Collector R 77 26 1650 615400 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 0.111 0.947 Urban Major Collector R 68 22 1500 615400 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 0.947 2.246 Rural Major Collector R 68 22 390 615400 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 2.246 6.619 Rural Major Collector R 75 22 500 315300 HILEMAN LN 0.000 0.471 Urban Local L 81 20.8 22 100 198200 HILEMAN RD 0.000 0.885 Rural Local L 80 8.3 16 130 195600 HILL RD 0.000 4.572 Rural Minor Collector R 86 22 1300 506000 HILL RD 0.000 0.210 Rural Local L 94 5.5 16 50 268400 HILL RD EAST 0.000 0.200 Rural Local R 13 268500 HILL RD NO 0.000 0.247 Rural Local R 18 20 268500 HILL RD NO 0.247 0.550 Rural Local R 14 268500 HILL RD NO 0.550 0.828 Rural Local R 18 268600 HILL RD WEST 0.000 0.369 Rural Local R 15 609800 HILL TOP DR 0.000 1.418 Rural Local L 54 11.0 24 440 428300 HILLAIRE ST 0.000 0.581 Rural Local L 78 18 90 428300 HILLAIRE ST 0.581 0.839 Rural Local R 18 428300 HILLAIRE ST 0.839 1.060 Rural Local L 77 18 136200 HILLCREST DR 0.000 0.134 Urban Local L 95 10.0 26 240 211900 HILLEGAS AVE 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 17 20 136500 HILLIARD LN WEST 0.000 0.844 Urban Local L 92 18.2 28 1300 622200 HILLS CR RD 0.000 2.410 Rural Local L 81 13.5 26 1000 622200 HILLS CR RD 2.410 6.000 Rural Local R 78 19.0 22 216500 HILLVIEW RD 0.000 1.380 Rural Local L 79 13.0 22 380 336800 HILO DR 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 97 17.0 36 614700 HINES WAY 0.000 0.093 Rural Local L 95 13.5 22 212500 HOAGLAND LN 0.000 0.092 Rural Local L 98 16.5 20 121400 HODSDONSDALE LN 0.000 0.306 Rural Local R 79 24 30 121405 HODSDONSDALE LN (Y) 0.000 0.047 Rural Local L 0 20 108000 HOLDEN CR LN 0.000 0.157 Rural Minor Collector L 86 15.0 22 900 108000 HOLDEN CR LN 0.157 1.503 Rural Local L 86 9.3 22 280 324000 HOLLYVIEW AVE 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 83 26 324000 HOLLYVIEW AVE 0.040 0.158 Urban Local L 83 7.0 26 324070 HOLLYVIEW AVE CUL 0.000 0.014 Urban Local L 87 75 197700 HONEYBEE LN 0.000 0.449 Rural Local L 85 11.5 18 400

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-34

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

320400 HONOLULU AVE 0.000 0.149 Urban Local L 97 17.0 36 270 320450 HONOLULU AVE CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 91 15.0 32 272900 HOOTON'S CORNERS RD 0.000 0.410 Rural Local L 72 19.3 20 139800 HOOVER LN NO 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 97 8.0 22 139900 HOOVER LN SO 0.000 0.069 Urban Local L 72 16.0 30 100 527600 HORIZON WAY 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 82 8.5 22 136000 HORN LN 0.000 0.928 Urban Minor Collector L 88 15.2 24 2300 403200 HORN RD 0.000 0.570 Rural Local L 74 8.3 20 410 113000 HORSE CR RD 0.000 1.387 Rural Minor Collector M 82 18.2 28 370 113000 HORSE CR RD 1.387 3.000 Rural Local L 71 8.0 26 113000 HORSE CR RD 3.000 4.260 Rural Local L 81 21.0 26 364000 HORTON RD 0.000 2.242 Rural Major Collector M 96 24 450 364000 HORTON RD 2.242 3.685 Rural Major Collector M 90 24 134200 HOWARD AVE 0.000 0.956 Urban Minor Collector L 89 12.2 30 3000 139600 HOWARD AVE EAST 0.000 0.227 Urban Local L 95 10.0 26 550 222900 HOWARD CT 0.000 0.058 Rural Local R 56 14.0 24 348200 HOWARD LN 0.000 1.426 Rural Local L 86 26 180 223000 HOWARD LP 0.000 0.594 Rural Local R 66 17.0 24 140 199500 HOWARD RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local R 77 10.3 20 230 199500 HOWARD RD 0.500 1.475 Rural Local R 85 20 217400 HOWE LN 0.000 1.230 Rural Major Collector R 88 24 600 217400 HOWE LN 1.230 3.165 Rural Major Collector R 88 22 490 615900 HUCKLEBERRY LP 0.000 0.127 Rural Local L 71 13.0 20 616100 HUCKLEBERRY RD 0.000 0.288 Rural Local L 77 11.0 22 345400 HULBERT LAKE RD 0.000 2.395 Rural Local L 60 10.0 22 110 345405 HULBERT LAKE RD (Y) 0.000 0.041 Rural Local L 85 20 271400 HULL RD 0.000 0.300 Rural Local L 92 11.0 18 40 332000 HUNSAKER LN-BEAVER ST 0.000 0.060 Urban Minor Collector L 41 38 6800 332000 HUNSAKER LN-BEAVER ST 0.060 1.141 Urban Minor Collector L 52 17.3 28 5650 606300 HUSS RD 0.000 0.098 Rural Local L 78 9.3 16 431200 HUSTON RD NO 0.060 0.230 Urban Local L 100 12.8 25 700 431200 HUSTON RD NO 0.230 0.391 Urban Local L 100 15.8 25 800 430800 HUSTON RD SO 0.272 0.524 Urban Minor Collector L 99 26 1300 430800 HUSTON RD SO 0.524 1.070 Urban Minor Collector L 99 11.5 26 550

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-35

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

334000 HYACINTH CT 0.000 0.019 Urban Local L 95 28 329800 HYACINTH ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Minor Collector L 87 20.0 32 1700 335600 HYACINTH ST 0.000 0.124 Urban Minor Collector L 81 17.0 36 335800 HYACINTH ST 0.000 0.097 Urban Minor Collector L 96 36 329800 HYACINTH ST 0.100 0.530 Urban Minor Collector L 93 36 950 329800 HYACINTH ST 0.530 0.664 Urban Minor Collector L 94 26 500 329870 HYACINTH ST CUL 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 93 78 335850 HYACINTH ST CUL 0.000 0.059 Urban Local L 96 13.0 32 213500 IDYLLWILD RD 0.000 0.433 Rural Local R 73 11.5 24 609000 IMMIGRANT RD 0.000 1.240 Rural Local L 89 11.3 24 330 513000 INDIAN CR RD 0.000 2.700 Rural Minor Collector M 98 20.0 22 170 513000 INDIAN CR RD 2.700 5.500 Rural Minor Collector M 95 26.8 22 70 513000 INDIAN CR RD 5.500 8.771 Rural Minor Collector M 91 14.5 20 513000 INDIAN CR RD 8.771 12.233 Rural Minor Collector M ~91 16.0 20 513000 INDIAN CR RD 12.233 12.316 Rural Minor Collector M 91 16 161500 INDIAN DR 0.000 0.189 Rural Local L 84 13.5 28 100500 INLAND WAY 0.000 0.368 Urban Local L 100 22.0 32 330 100550 INLAND WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 100 32 100555 INLAND WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.022 Urban Local L 100 30 100570 INLAND WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 100 32 100590 INLAND WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.031 Urban Local L 100 32 332900 IRVING CT 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 93 15.0 22 326800 IRVING RD 0.082 0.620 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 22.7 46 7650 326800 IRVING RD 0.620 1.230 Urban Minor Arterial L 91 46 7700 326800 IRVING RD 1.230 1.360 Urban Minor Arterial L 82 32 9300 326800 IRVING RD 1.360 1.380 Urban Minor Arterial L 38 326800 IRVING RD 1.380 1.500 Urban Minor Arterial L 86 22 5600 326800 IRVING RD 1.500 2.040 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 19.5 44 7750 319500 IRVINGTON DR 0.000 1.412 Urban Minor Arterial L 29 13.5 24 5600 319500 IRVINGTON DR 1.412 1.430 Urban Major Collector L 29 24 319500 IRVINGTON DR 1.430 1.479 Urban Major Collector L 74 23.5 24 3500 320600 IRVINGTON DR CUL 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 97 15.0 32 176500 ISLAND CT 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 96 12.0 24 176400 ISLAND ST 0.000 0.071 Urban Local L 96 12.0 24

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-36

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

131600 IVANHOE AVE 0.000 0.194 Urban Local L 98 10.0 28 150 131620 IVANHOE AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 92 28 133400 IVY AVE 0.000 0.276 Urban Local L 31 12.0 24 320 127400 IZAAK WALTON RD 0.000 0.513 Rural Local L 39 18 140 219800 JACKSON RD 0.000 0.405 Rural Local L 45 20 90 346000 JAEG RD 0.000 0.784 Rural Local R 80 20 90 350500 JAEGER RD 0.000 1.601 Rural Local L 98 8.0 22 110 350595 JAEGER RD (Y) 0.000 0.023 Rural Local L 100 24 176300 JANUS CT 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 98 9.0 24 176200 JANUS ST 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 97 13.5 24 331400 JASMINE ST 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 94 9.0 24 340300 JASON ST 0.000 0.068 Urban Local L 96 10.0 30 627700 JASPER PARK DR 0.000 0.825 Rural Local L 88 20 290 627500 JASPER PARK RD 0.000 1.373 Rural Local L 79 10.3 21 230 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 0.000 1.200 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 70 16.3 30 6350 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 1.200 1.600 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 53 11.0 30 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 1.600 3.874 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 72 19.0 30 4800 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 3.874 5.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 37 27.0 22 1200 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 5.000 6.118 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 77 22 1200 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 6.118 8.574 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 83 24.6 22 750 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 8.574 8.920 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 75 24.0 30 1200 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 8.920 9.500 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 74 26 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 9.500 9.835 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 70 17.3 28 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 9.835 10.399 Urban Major Collector R 70 17.3 28 2150 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 10.399 10.410 Urban Major Collector R 66 28 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 10.410 10.560 Urban Major Collector R 66 30 2650 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 10.560 10.945 Urban Major Collector R 37 20.7 34 2800 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 10.945 11.006 Urban Major Collector L 37 25.2 34 2750 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 11.006 11.278 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 37 25.2 34 2750

365400 JAY RD 0.000 0.895 Rural Local L 14 40 137800 JAYNE ST 0.000 0.057 Urban Local L 84 17.0 26 403600 JEANS RD 1.014 1.185 Urban Minor Collector L 83 22 403600 JEANS RD 1.185 3.000 Rural Minor Collector L 83 22 1000

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-37

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

403600 JEANS RD 3.000 3.590 Rural Minor Collector L 78 22 253800 JENKINS RD 0.000 0.777 Rural Local L 20 415600 JESSIE LN 0.000 0.217 Rural Local R 98 20 528600 JETTY RD NO 0.000 0.211 Urban Local L 83 20 1050 528600 JETTY RD NO 0.211 1.010 Rural Local L 100 11.3 20 318100 JILL AVE 0.000 0.033 Urban Local L 74 13.0 36 275700 JOE GEER RD 0.000 0.235 Rural Local L 61 4.5 22 40 198400 JOHNSON RD 0.000 0.928 Rural Local R 83 8.5 20 150 196800 JONES ACRES RD 0.000 0.291 Rural Local L 78 10.0 22 331500 JONQUIL AVE 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 72 14.5 26 331600 JONQUIL AVE 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 94 13.0 26 138300 JOSEPHINE ST 0.000 0.099 Urban Local L 89 22.5 28 528800 JOSHUA LN 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 80 5.3 20 528800 JOSHUA LN 0.100 0.318 Urban Local L 66 16 428700 JUDY AVE 0.000 0.284 Rural Local L 82 19 40 150600 JUNIPER LN 0.000 0.085 Urban Local L 98 13.0 24 343600 KAISER AVE 0.000 0.106 Urban Local L 85 15.0 22 329400 KALMIA ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Minor Collector L 95 17.5 28 1800 329400 KALMIA ST 0.070 0.166 Urban Local L 95 28 470 152300 KATHLEEN CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 94 20 331900 KEIPER AVE 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 95 10.5 28 167400 KELLOGG RD 0.000 0.136 Urban Local L 88 14.5 20 420 140900 KELLY LN 0.000 0.159 Urban Local L 90 10.0 22 344200 KELSO AVE 0.000 0.450 Urban Local L 76 13.0 20 226000 KENADY LN 0.000 2.187 Rural Local L 57 8.0 20 650 318200 KENDRA ST 0.000 0.188 Urban Local L 93 10.0 28 428000 KENNETH NIELSON RD 0.000 0.096 Rural Local L 69 24 120 428000 KENNETH NIELSON RD 0.096 1.140 Rural Local L 69 10.8 24 428000 KENNETH NIELSON RD 1.140 2.288 Rural Local L 22 60 605300 KENSINGTON DR 0.000 0.418 Rural Local L 86 15.0 24 280 605500 KENSINGTON DR CUL 0.000 0.044 Rural Local L 82 7.5 24 107700 KEOLA CT 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 96 11.0 22 107600 KEOLA LN 0.000 0.257 Rural Local L 95 11.0 22 193700 KICKBUSCH LN 0.000 0.872 Rural Local L 100 14.0 20 170

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-38

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

316300 KILDARE ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 93 13.0 30 316500 KILDARE ST 0.000 0.210 Urban Local L 92 15.0 28 100 316500 KILDARE ST 0.210 0.256 Urban Local L 81 28 410 316590 KILDARE ST CUL 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 95 13.5 79 316540 KILDARE ST CUL 'B' 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 93 28 610500 KIMBALL RD 0.000 0.267 Rural Local L 92 13.0 22 130 111800 KING RD EAST 0.000 1.038 Rural Minor Collector M 99 14.5 28 140 111800 KING RD EAST 1.038 3.168 Rural Minor Collector M 99 28 111800 KING RD EAST 3.168 4.012 Rural Minor Collector M 96 14.3 28 40 111600 KING RD WEST 0.000 0.008 Rural Local L 85 28 190 111600 KING RD WEST 0.008 0.044 Rural Local L 85 21 111600 KING RD WEST 0.044 0.150 Rural Local L 85 16.5 28 80 111600 KING RD WEST 0.150 1.758 Rural Local L 74 20 80 613100 KINGS WAY 0.000 0.130 Rural Local R 13 317000 KINGSBURY AVE 0.000 0.488 Urban Local L 96 18.0 36 1150 317090 KINGSBURY AVE CUL 0.000 0.058 Urban Local L 95 15.0 32 363300 KINSER LN 0.000 0.557 Rural Local L 100 20 122500 KINWOOD RD 0.000 0.123 Rural Local L 10 171200 KIRK AVE 0.000 0.071 Urban Local L 95 9.0 20 385600 KIRK RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Local L 100 20 170 385600 KIRK RD 1.000 1.872 Rural Local L 100 16 170 318300 KIRSTEN ST 0.000 0.189 Urban Local L 93 12.5 28 617800 KITSON SPRINGS RD 0.000 4.650 Rural Major Collector M 80 24 470 535500 KIWANDA ST 0.000 0.005 Urban Local L 99 28 535500 KIWANDA ST 0.005 0.115 Urban Local L 99 28 1200 535500 KIWANDA ST 0.115 0.132 Urban Local L 99 28 334400 KLAMATH CT 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 96 14.0 32 334300 KLAMATH ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 97 14.0 28 142900 KNAPP LN CUL 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 97 9.0 26 325300 KNAVE ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 97 11.0 28 324900 KNIGHT AVE 0.000 0.145 Urban Local L 97 12.0 28 433000 KNIGHT RD 0.000 1.440 Rural Minor Collector R 89 19.0 24 700 433000 KNIGHT RD 1.440 3.885 Rural Minor Collector R 91 17.5 30 500 524200 KNOLL WAY 0.000 0.244 Rural Local L 90 3.8 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-39

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

138500 KNOOP LN 0.320 0.574 Urban Local L 94 10.8 26 230 127100 KOINONIA RD 0.000 0.330 Rural Local L 62 24 50 370200 KOKKELER RD 0.000 0.861 Rural Local L 81 21.5 22 270500 KOSEY RD 0.000 0.202 Rural Local L 3.8 22 50 132000 KOURT DR 0.000 0.580 Urban Local L 86 7.0 22 700 100700 KREMONT AVE 0.000 0.074 Urban Local L 100 23.0 32 370500 KRUGUR PARK RD 0.000 0.340 Rural Local L 78 14.3 22 324700 LA DARRAH ST 0.000 0.133 Urban Local L 92 13.0 20 142500 LABONA DR 0.142 0.259 Urban Local L 57 20.5 30 1400 132200 LABONA ST 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 48 29.0 28 340 614000 LADUKE RD 0.000 2.194 Rural Local L 88 7.7 20 150 219900 LAJOIE RD 0.000 0.153 Rural Local L 51 9.8 18 535400 LAKE BLVD 0.000 0.305 Urban Local L 95 22 135200 LAKE DR 0.000 0.130 Urban Minor Collector L 59 24 2100 136900 LAKE DR 0.000 0.084 Urban Local L 94 13.0 28 135200 LAKE DR 0.130 0.430 Urban Minor Collector L 90 5.0 30 1350 429400 LAKE SIDE DR 0.000 0.112 Rural Local L 81 20 80 371300 LAKEVIEW DR 0.000 0.561 Rural Local L 96 13.5 22 480 400400 LAMB RD 0.000 1.090 Rural Local L 65 22 290 336100 LANCASTER DR 0.000 0.365 Urban Minor Collector L 75 19.0 36 2700 336170 LANCASTER DR CUL 0.000 0.047 Urban Local L 86 14.0 32 336180 LANCASTER DR CUL 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 68 32 256000 LAND LN 0.000 0.256 Rural Local L 80 10.5 20 60 164500 LANES TURN RD 0.000 0.775 Rural Local L 80 20 90 329300 LANTANA AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 96 10.0 26 162400 LARALEE ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 77 13.0 32 374900 LARSLAN LN 0.000 0.237 Rural Local L 57 26 312200 LARSON LN 0.000 0.076 Rural Local L 63 8.0 16 10 415100 LARSON RD 0.000 0.582 Rural Local L 89 17.5 18 380 314600 LASSEN LN 0.000 0.650 Rural Local L 83 20 140 269900 LATHAM RD 0.000 0.965 Rural Major Collector L 79 23.5 30 1850 415300 LAUGHLIN RD 0.000 1.260 Rural Local L 86 12.0 20 300 193900 LAURA ST 0.000 0.273 Urban Major Collector L 59 20.0 22 3300 101700 LAUREL AVE 0.000 0.016 Urban Local L 100 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-40

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

535200 LAUREL AVE 0.000 0.061 Urban Local L 96 12.5 22 70 101700 LAUREL AVE 0.016 0.216 Urban Local L 100 15.0 16 440 346100 LAVELL RD 0.000 0.720 Rural Local R 78 20 346100 LAVELL RD 0.720 0.938 Rural Local R 75 16 192400 LAWNRIDGE AVE 0.000 0.234 Urban Local L 97 9.5 28 90 386200 LAWRENCE RD 0.000 0.990 Rural Major Collector R 90 30 2150 386200 LAWRENCE RD 0.990 3.847 Rural Major Collector R 88 24.2 30 1450 254200 LAYNG RD 0.000 1.424 Rural Local L 74 11.5 22 410 331100 LEA AVE 0.000 0.052 Urban Local L 95 15.0 25 108800 LEABURG DAM RD 0.100 0.370 Rural Local L 86 5.5 18 280 108800 LEABURG DAM RD 0.370 0.500 Rural Local L 92 16 108800 LEABURG DAM RD 0.500 0.700 Rural Local L 93 14 108800 LEABURG DAM RD 0.700 0.815 Rural Local L 79 12 108200 LEABURG DR 0.000 0.563 Rural Local L 99 9.8 22 160 607400 LEAFWOOD ST 0.000 0.059 Rural Local L 95 14.5 22 109500 LEASHORE DR 0.000 0.444 Rural Local L 86 18.8 22 140 109580 LEASHORE DR (CUL) 0.000 0.032 Rural Local L 60 15.0 22 109590 LEASHORE DR (CUL) 0.000 0.032 Rural Local L 58 18.0 22 254500 LEATHERS LN 0.000 0.106 Rural Local L 85 17.0 20 343900 LEDA WAY 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 2.0 16 530800 LEEWARD DR 0.000 0.192 Urban Local L 54 12.0 22 343400 LEGHORN RD 0.000 0.142 Urban Local L 78 20 326600 LENOX RD 0.000 0.064 Urban Local L 96 8.0 28 439200 LETZ CR RD 0.000 0.960 Rural Local L 83 11.0 16 100 439200 LETZ CR RD 0.960 1.286 Rural Local R 16 522200 LEVAGE DR 0.000 0.438 Rural Local L 76 4.5 18 750 183600 LEXINGTON AVE 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 96 6.0 20 328400 LEYTON LN 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 96 13.0 26 316800 LIMERICK AVE 0.000 0.158 Urban Local L 89 16.0 32 221900 LINCOLN AVE 0.198 0.301 Urban Local L 49 9.5 16 320 522900 LINDA WAY 0.000 0.128 Rural Local L 91 2.8 24 150400 LINDEN AVE 0.000 0.246 Urban Local L 92 17.0 26 210 141400 LINDNER LN 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 86 9.0 20 170 348000 LINGO LN 0.000 1.896 Rural Minor Collector L 84 12.7 28 800

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-41

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

355100 LINK DR 0.000 0.737 Urban Local L 19 8.3 19 1000 352200 LINK LN 0.000 0.507 Rural Local L 91 8.3 20 352100 LINK RIDGE DR 0.000 0.186 Rural Local L 100 12.0 22 435700 LINN LN 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 10 134000 LINWOOD AVE 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 88 9.5 26 70 135500 LINWOOD ST 0.000 0.153 Urban Local L 77 15.0 26 404100 LISOSKI LN 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 91 5.5 18 30 623000 LITTLE FALL CR RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Minor Collector M 77 13.3 24 800 623000 LITTLE FALL CR RD 1.500 3.678 Rural Minor Collector M 85 12.4 24 366600 LITTLE LAKE RD 0.000 1.050 Rural Local R 72 16 70 251900 LLOYD AVE 0.000 0.123 Urban Local L 98 9.8 20 323200 LOBELIA AVE 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 88 13.0 36 519200 LOBSTER CR RD 0.000 0.826 Rural Local R 80 19.0 22 181100 LOCH DR 0.000 0.137 Urban Local L 86 13.0 32 159200 LOCKE RD 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 82 26 159200 LOCKE RD 0.045 0.242 Urban Local L 82 27.5 26 184500 LOCUST ST 0.000 0.098 Urban Local L 91 11.0 26 340100 LODENQUAI LN 0.000 0.087 Urban Local L 97 13.0 29 149800 LODGEPOLE CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 89 26 402300 LOIS LN 0.000 0.484 Rural Local R 3.5 18 191300 LOMOND AVE 0.000 0.241 Urban Local L 59 15.5 36 750 191320 LOMOND AVE CUL 0.000 0.051 Urban Local L 87 32 191350 LOMOND AVE CUL 0.000 0.062 Urban Local L 88 32 191390 LOMOND AVE CUL 0.000 0.033 Urban Local L 87 32 270000 LONDON RD 0.000 3.520 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 100 26.0 30 3300

270000 LONDON RD 3.520 6.730 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

77 25.5 30 1350

270000 LONDON RD 6.730 8.800 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

100 25.5 30

270000 LONDON RD 8.800 12.953 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

72 23.7 26 400

270000 LONDON RD 12.953 13.050 Rural Local L 72 26 270000 LONDON RD 13.050 14.135 Rural Local L 82 21.0 22

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-42

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

332500 LONE OAK AVE 0.000 0.110 Urban Local L 92 15.2 38 332500 LONE OAK AVE 0.110 0.182 Urban Local L 96 38 314500 LONE PINE DR 0.000 0.914 Rural Local L 69 20 280 362300 LONG TOM DR 0.000 0.281 Rural Local L 82 18 90 102300 LONGRIDGE DR 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 100 16.0 32 102400 LONGRIDGE DR 0.000 0.216 Urban Local L 100 28 350 102450 LONGRIDGE DR (CUL) 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 100 16.0 28 226300 LONGVIEW LN 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 92 22 226300 LONGVIEW LN 0.500 0.891 Rural Local L 92 24 125000 LORANE HWY 1.850 2.001 Urban Minor Arterial R 98 20 1550 125000 LORANE HWY 2.001 2.337 Urban Minor Arterial R 98 20 125000 LORANE HWY 2.337 5.500 Rural Major Collector R 85 16.8 20 1700 125000 LORANE HWY 5.500 5.916 Rural Major Collector R 88 20 1650 425000 LORANE HWY 5.916 6.013 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 91 32 2550 425000 LORANE HWY 6.013 9.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 76 32 1850 425000 LORANE HWY 9.000 10.311 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 70 32 425000 LORANE HWY 10.311 11.080 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 60 32 1100 425000 LORANE HWY 11.080 12.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 90 32 425000 LORANE HWY 12.000 13.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 89 32 425000 LORANE HWY 13.000 14.174 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 88 32 1100 439700 LORANE ORCHARD RD 0.000 0.356 Rural Local R 90 16 110 152100 LORIE CT 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 94 6.0 20 612000 LOST CR RD 0.000 0.669 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 95 20.5 28 1300 612000 LOST CR RD 0.669 1.876 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 95 28 2150 612000 LOST CR RD 1.876 4.035 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 95 24.0 28 1000 612000 LOST CR RD 4.035 5.358 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 95 28 390 612000 LOST CR RD 5.358 5.888 Rural Minor Collector R 93 28 610700 LOST VALLEY LN 0.000 1.647 Rural Local R 76 7.5 20 310 376100 LOUDEN LN 0.000 0.770 Rural Local L 89 22 311000 LOVE LAKE RD 0.000 2.000 Rural Local L 72 5.3 20 1300 311000 LOVE LAKE RD 2.000 2.821 Rural Local R 5.3 18 246500 LOWER BRICE CR RD 0.000 2.250 Rural Local L 82 4.5 18 70 246500 LOWER BRICE CR RD 2.250 3.690 Rural Local R 85 6.8 14 246505 LOWER BRICE CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.021 Rural Local L 83 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-43

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

533800 LOWER FIDDLE CR RD 0.000 1.154 Rural Local L 78 10.3 16 70 324800 LOY AVE 0.000 0.130 Urban Local L 93 9.0 22 415200 LUSK RD 0.000 0.220 Rural Local R 89 20 90 415200 LUSK RD 0.220 0.453 Rural Local R 87 16 190100 LUZKOW LN 0.000 0.183 Rural Local R 20 137600 LYNN LN 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 96 26 100 335000 LYNNBROOK DR 0.000 0.633 Urban Local L 88 18.5 34 2300 335060 LYNNBROOK DR CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 87 28 335070 LYNNBROOK DR CUL 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 75 28 335090 LYNNBROOK DR CUL 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 80 28 335010 LYNNBROOK DR CUL LP 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 83 28 335020 LYNNBROOK DR CUL LP 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 71 28 335030 LYNNBROOK DR CUL LP 0.000 0.041 Urban Local L 92 28 219200 LYNX HOLLOW RD 0.000 2.790 Rural Minor Collector R 72 24 1000 219200 LYNX HOLLOW RD 2.790 3.712 Rural Minor Collector L 68 22 219200 LYNX HOLLOW RD 3.712 3.902 Rural Local L 57 22 193500 M J CHASE RD WEST 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 69 20 210 193500 M J CHASE RD WEST 0.120 0.886 Rural Local L 57 18 106200 MADRONE ST 0.000 0.703 Rural Local L 80 12.0 22 390 332700 MAESNER ST 0.000 0.222 Urban Local L 96 13.0 28 217600 MAHR LN 0.000 0.460 Rural Local L 98 8.5 18 160 217600 MAHR LN 0.460 0.744 Rural Local L 81 17 217605 MAHR RD (Y) 0.000 0.048 Rural Local L 90 22 361800 MAIN ST 0.000 0.138 Rural Local L 98 22 361800 MAIN ST 0.204 0.300 Rural Local L 99 17 159900 MALLARD AVE 0.000 0.310 Urban Local L 96 15.3 36 950 156700 MANOR DR 0.000 0.327 Urban Local L 95 7.0 28 600 156800 MANSFIELD ST 0.000 0.247 Urban Local L 95 11.5 27 270 137400 MANZANA LN 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 96 16.0 28 134600 MANZANA ST 0.000 0.074 Urban Local L 95 13.5 32 136600 MANZANA ST 0.000 0.126 Urban Local L 80 7.5 18 532600 MAPLE CR RD 0.000 0.592 Rural Minor Collector M 73 16 90 532600 MAPLE CR RD 0.592 0.683 Rural Local R 94 9.3 16 532600 MAPLE CR RD 0.683 3.434 Rural Local R 9.0 15

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-44

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

532600 MAPLE CR RD 3.434 3.720 Rural Local R 13 144100 MAPLE DR 0.000 0.188 Urban Local L 0 32 314000 MAPLE DR 0.000 0.870 Rural Local L 94 10.3 20 200 314000 MAPLE DR 0.870 1.224 Rural Local L 95 21.0 18 314000 MAPLE DR 1.224 1.280 Rural Local L 14 328900 MARANTA ST 0.000 0.223 Urban Local L 96 13.0 28 240 328960 MARANTA ST CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 88 32 110300 MARBROOK LN 0.000 0.207 Rural Local L 68 13.5 24 190000 MARCOLA RD 1.796 1.874 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 62 46 190000 MARCOLA RD 1.874 2.100 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 62 46 9700 190000 MARCOLA RD 2.100 5.818 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 87 33.0 36 5650 190000 MARCOLA RD 5.818 11.550 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 60 30.0 24 4400 190000 MARCOLA RD 11.550 16.080 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 82 21.4 23 1900 190000 MARCOLA RD 16.080 20.645 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 86 22.5 29 1500 430400 MARINA DR 0.000 0.334 Rural Local L 61 9.5 22 410 430500 MARINA DR CUL 0.000 0.082 Rural Local L 81 9.5 22 80 136800 MARION LN 0.000 0.466 Urban Local L 93 17.0 30 500 161100 MARJORIE AVE 0.000 0.145 Urban Local L 94 28 161150 MARJORIE AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 94 28 161180 MARJORIE AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 95 28 215600 MARKET RD 0.000 0.672 Rural Local R 83 20 1600 529100 MARKET ST 0.000 0.050 Rural Local R 82 8.0 18 212700 MARLOW RD 0.000 0.260 Rural Local L 58 12.0 20 130 212700 MARLOW RD 0.260 1.477 Rural Local L 18 227000 MARTIN CR RD 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 22 19.5 18 410 227000 MARTIN CR RD 0.240 1.191 Rural Local L 67 10.5 18 212400 MARTIN RD EAST 0.000 0.049 Urban Local L 86 20 212000 MARTIN RD WEST 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 26 25.3 20 100 323300 MARVIN DR 0.000 0.220 Urban Local L 91 11.0 32 323300 MARVIN DR 0.220 0.309 Urban Local L 94 26 323350 MARVIN DR CUL 0.000 0.039 Urban Local L 95 32 611100 MATHEWS DR 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 60 10.3 16 188400 MATHEWS RD 0.000 2.309 Rural Local L 86 22 1000 319400 MAVERICK AVE 0.000 0.058 Urban Local L 92 13.0 36

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-45

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

130600 MAXWELL CONN 0.000 0.310 Urban Local L 87 42 3200 133000 MAXWELL RD 0.000 0.622 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 27.5 48 6300 133000 MAXWELL RD 0.622 1.066 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 48 7550 133000 MAXWELL RD 1.066 1.086 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 48 133000 MAXWELL RD 1.293 1.392 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 30 133000 MAXWELL RD 1.392 1.605 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 46 6650 138900 MAYFAIR LN 0.000 0.252 Urban Local L 72 11.0 20 650 141600 MAYNARD AVE 0.000 0.170 Urban Local L 0 13.0 24 180 426500 MAYOLA LN 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 91 9.8 22 426500 MAYOLA LN 0.240 0.398 Rural Local R 91 20 134100 MAYWOOD AVE 0.000 0.110 Urban Local L 94 14.0 26 120 135600 MAYWOOD ST 0.000 0.154 Urban Local L 70 13.5 26 127300 MCBETH RD 0.000 3.604 Rural Minor Collector R 69 20 750 127305 MCBETH RD (Y) 0.000 0.065 Rural Minor Collector L 80 20 521900 MCCRAE RD 0.000 0.159 Rural Local L 6.0 14 628300 MCCUMBER RD 0.000 0.462 Rural Local L 67 21 271000 MCDOLE RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 69 13.8 20 140 271000 MCDOLE RD 0.500 0.890 Rural Local L 51 18 613000 MCFARLAND RD 0.000 1.582 Rural Minor Collector R 71 14.0 22 380 613004 MCFARLAND RD (Y) 0.000 0.030 Rural Minor Collector L 68 13 613005 MCFARLAND RD (Y) 0.000 0.012 Rural Minor Collector L 72 13 613095 MCFARLAND RD (Y) 1.550 1.584 Rural Minor Collector L 51 24 196000 MCGOWAN CR RD 0.000 0.192 Rural Local L 80 22 200 111200 MCKENZIE RIVER DR 0.000 3.034 Rural Minor Collector L 72 15.8 24 230 159500 MCKENZIE VIEW DR 0.000 3.190 Rural Minor Collector R 72 22 1000 159500 MCKENZIE VIEW DR 3.190 6.099 Rural Minor Collector R 72 22 750 349000 MCMULLEN LN 0.000 1.458 Rural Local L 87 26 480 101100 MEADOW GLEN DR 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 88 10.0 24 344600 MEADOWVIEW RD EAST 0.000 1.162 Rural Minor Collector L 100 6.4 22 420 344300 MEADOWVIEW RD WEST 0.000 1.446 Rural Minor Collector L 90 16.8 24 1250 344300 MEADOWVIEW RD WEST 1.446 2.952 Rural Minor Collector L 90 18.8 24 750 322400 MECCA AVE 0.000 0.252 Urban Local L 97 17.0 26 192200 MELLOWOOD CT 0.000 0.010 Urban Local L 98 18.0 28 219500 MELODY LN 0.000 0.280 Rural Local L 72 11.5 18 180

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-46

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

141800 MELVINA WAY 0.000 0.118 Urban Local L 89 8.5 26 141800 MELVINA WAY 0.118 0.200 Urban Local L 81 7.5 20 150800 MENLO LOOP 0.000 0.300 Urban Local L 56 17.0 26 700 150805 MENLO LP (Y) 0.000 0.014 Urban Local L 44 18 523200 MERCER CR DR 0.000 0.491 Rural Local R 83 9.5 16 210 524000 MERCER LAKE RD 0.000 1.080 Rural Major Collector M 98 8.5 24 750 524000 MERCER LAKE RD 1.080 1.715 Rural Major Collector M 100 16 524000 MERCER LAKE RD 1.715 3.670 Rural Local R 100 8.5 18 523500 MERCER LAKE RD NO 0.000 0.500 Rural Local R 100 5.8 22 260 523500 MERCER LAKE RD NO 0.500 1.110 Rural Local R 100 16 524600 MERCER VIEW DR 0.000 0.477 Rural Local M 100 11.0 20 335500 MEREDITH CT 0.000 0.083 Urban Local L 84 15.0 25 142700 MERIAU LN 0.000 0.134 Urban Local L 87 11.0 18 184300 MERRYHILL CT 0.000 0.037 Urban Local L 95 17.0 26 371000 MERRYMAN RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Local L 76 20 371000 MERRYMAN RD 1.000 1.772 Rural Local L 83 20 241200 MEYER RD 0.000 2.383 Rural Local R 87 18 320 214800 MICKELSON RD 0.000 0.660 Rural Local R 90 12.7 20 112000 MILL CR RD NO 0.000 0.238 Rural Local L 95 8.5 24 40 112400 MILL CR RD SO 0.000 0.166 Rural Local L 72 6.5 24 320 218800 MILL RD 0.000 0.535 Rural Local L 87 23.5 20 140 610200 MILL RD 0.000 0.249 Rural Local L 89 13.5 20 210 106900 MILLER AVE 0.000 0.160 Rural Local L 98 12.8 20 407000 MILLER RD 0.000 0.320 Rural Local L 74 6.3 22 90 106600 MILLICAN RD 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 65 8.8 20 850 106600 MILLICAN RD 0.090 0.551 Rural Local L 69 20 600 106605 MILLICAN RD (OLD) 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 77 23 345000 MILLIRON RD EAST 0.000 0.402 Rural Local L 76 11.8 28 500 344800 MILLIRON RD WEST 0.000 1.438 Rural Local L 100 22 500 139500 MILO WAY 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 89 12.0 24 611700 MINNICK RD 0.000 0.213 Rural Local L 74 11.0 22 331700 MINT AVE 0.000 0.109 Urban Local L 94 17.0 24 183700 MISSISSIPPI AVE 0.000 0.267 Urban Local L 98 11.0 18 470 194200 MISSY LN 0.000 0.216 Rural Local L 57 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-47

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

531600 MITCHELL LP 0.000 1.045 Rural Local L 78 12.5 22 390 198600 MOHAWK LP RD 0.000 0.687 Rural Local L 86 16.8 22 40 199000 MOHAWK RIVER RD 0.000 0.500 Urban Local L 55 11.5 20 240 199000 MOHAWK RIVER RD 0.500 2.162 Urban Local L 49 12.3 20 241600 MOLITOR HILL RD 0.000 0.982 Rural Local L 78 5.0 24 241700 MOLITOR RANCH RD 0.000 0.654 Rural Local R 87 7.5 22 176800 MONTEBELLO AVE 0.000 0.187 Urban Local L 95 12.5 28 332600 MOORE ST 0.000 0.210 Urban Local L 96 9.0 28 607800 MORNINGSTAR RD NO 0.000 1.000 Rural Local L 91 9.0 20 150 607800 MORNINGSTAR RD NO 1.000 1.480 Rural Local R 84 13.0 20 608800 MORNINGSTAR RD SO 0.000 0.440 Rural Local L 81 15.0 18 170 608800 MORNINGSTAR RD SO 0.440 0.720 Rural Local R 13 212100 MORSE AVE 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 21 20 250000 MOSBY CR RD 1.204 1.597 Rural Major Collector L 86 21.5 24 250000 MOSBY CR RD 1.597 1.610 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 86 24 250000 MOSBY CR RD 1.610 1.632 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 91 26 2650 250000 MOSBY CR RD 1.632 9.657 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 91 21.1 26 1900 610800 MOUNT ZION DR 0.000 0.645 Rural Local L 90 18.0 22 615500 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD 0.000 0.834 Rural Local L 72 7.5 22 400700 MOYER ST 0.000 0.297 Rural Local L 86 20 270 104300 MT VERNON CEM RD 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 28 10.3 18 40 104200 MT VERNON RD 0.000 0.361 Urban Major Collector R 90 20 5350 407500 MUIRLAND DR 0.000 0.330 Rural Local L 82 3.3 22 120 407500 MUIRLAND DR 0.330 0.491 Rural Local L 84 14 526000 MUNSEL LAKE RD 0.000 0.382 Urban Major Collector L 99 25 1600 526000 MUNSEL LAKE RD 0.382 0.500 Urban Major Collector L 15.5 25 526000 MUNSEL LAKE RD 0.500 0.774 Urban Major Collector L 91 25 526000 MUNSEL LAKE RD 0.774 2.090 Urban Major Collector R 91 25 1200 128200 MURDOCK RD 0.000 1.230 Rural Local L 76 6.0 20 260 330900 MYRNA AVE 0.000 0.152 Urban Local L 94 9.0 26 362600 MYRTLE ST 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 44 12 195300 NADEAU RD 0.000 0.238 Rural Local L 88 22 140700 NADINE AVE 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 91 14.0 26 140750 NADINE AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 89 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-48

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

139400 NANTUCKET AVE 0.000 0.218 Urban Local L 89 13.0 28 480 214700 NAPPER RD 0.000 0.100 Rural Local R 84 18.5 16 10 336900 NATCHEZ CT 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 95 26 105100 NATURE'S GARDEN ST 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 65 10.5 16 90 272800 NELLIE LN 0.000 0.389 Rural Local R 82 11.0 22 367000 NELSON MTN RD 0.000 2.860 Rural Minor Collector M 74 16 160 367000 NELSON MTN RD 2.860 4.200 Rural Minor Collector M 16 467000 NELSON MTN RD 4.200 9.890 Rural Minor Collector M 7.0 15 467000 NELSON MTN RD 9.890 11.109 Rural Minor Collector M 84 16.5 22 170 100600 NEPTUNE AVE 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 100 23.0 32 606400 NESTLE WAY 0.000 0.155 Rural Local L 97 11.3 20 334700 NEWCASTLE ST 0.000 0.264 Urban Local L 95 23.0 26 600 410300 NEWTON PL 0.000 0.090 Rural Local M 83 24 211500 NIEBLOCK LN 0.000 0.220 Urban Local L 68 22 1400 211500 NIEBLOCK LN 0.220 0.445 Urban Local L 80 22 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 0.000 0.849 Rural Major Collector L 89 26 1700 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 0.849 0.933 Rural Major Collector M 89 26 1500 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 0.933 5.700 Rural Major Collector R 86 18.6 26 320 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 5.700 11.450 Rural Major Collector M 84 15.8 26 230 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 11.450 12.500 Rural Minor Collector M 89 20 200 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 12.500 13.805 Rural Minor Collector M 76 8.9 20 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 13.805 17.412 Rural Minor Collector M 8.0 20 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 17.412 17.883 Rural Minor Collector R 69 7.8 16 50 122700 NO MODESTO RD 0.000 0.870 Rural Local L 89 22 190 132900 NO PARK AVE 0.000 0.500 Urban Local L 89 30 2000 132900 NO PARK AVE 0.500 0.573 Urban Local L 89 12.0 30 132900 NO PARK AVE 0.748 0.819 Urban Local L 95 30 132900 NO PARK AVE 1.136 1.298 Urban Local L 87 30 2750 132900 NO PARK AVE 1.298 1.785 Urban Local L 65 17.2 36 1250 221000 NO RIVER RD 0.000 0.433 Rural Major Collector L 88 24 1450 348500 NORATON RD 0.000 1.856 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 80 16.3 30 360 348500 NORATON RD 1.856 2.718 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 80 12.3 30 490 133900 NORMAN AVE 0.000 0.202 Urban Local L 91 14.0 28 500 133920 NORMAN AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 94 32

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-49

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

133950 NORMAN AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.031 Urban Local L 96 32 133970 NORMAN AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.031 Urban Local L 96 32 112800 NORTH BANK RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Local L 100 12.3 24 230 112800 NORTH BANK RD 1.500 2.150 Rural Local L 100 8.5 18 173000 NORTH DELTA HWY 0.000 0.201 Urban Major Collector L 48 40 12950 522510 NORTH LN 0.000 0.036 Rural Local L 74 16 180 522500 NORTH LN 0.036 0.416 Rural Local R 76 4.0 20 530900 NORTH LOFTUS RD 0.000 0.554 Rural Local L 78 6.3 18 250 102700 NORTH ST 0.000 0.123 Urban Local L 94 20 121000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 0.104 0.170 Urban Minor Arterial L 99 40 8350 121000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 0.170 1.738 Urban Minor Arterial L 99 25.0 40 7950 121000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 2.568 3.220 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 40 10700 321000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 3.220 3.350 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 30 321000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 3.350 4.749 Urban Minor Arterial L 99 30.0 40 12700 321800 NOTTINGHAM AVE 0.000 0.147 Urban Local L 94 11.0 28 321830 NOTTINGHAM AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 92 12.0 28 321870 NOTTINGHAM AVE CUL 'B' 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 95 13.0 28 171300 NOVA ST 0.000 0.147 Urban Local L 92 10.0 20 137000 OAK DR 0.000 0.059 Urban Local L 36 15.0 28 90 143100 OAK DR 0.000 0.116 Urban Local L 92 6.8 26 611200 OAK DR 0.000 0.224 Rural Local L 57 10.5 20 428100 OAK HILL CEMETERY RD 0.000 0.423 Rural Local L 76 20 100 423700 OAK HILL DR 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 55 9.0 20 340 423700 OAK HILL DR 0.500 0.850 Rural Local R 60 20 270 423700 OAK HILL DR 0.850 1.155 Rural Local R 16 423700 OAK HILL DR 1.155 1.200 Rural Local R 16 423700 OAK HILL DR 1.200 1.247 Rural Local R 89 24 328600 OAK LEAF DR 0.000 0.160 Urban Local L 95 12.5 26 401100 OAK LN 0.000 0.760 Rural Local L 84 22 270 193800 OAK POINT RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 95 28 193800 OAK POINT RD 0.040 0.200 Rural Local L 91 18 193800 OAK POINT RD 0.200 0.231 Rural Local L 96 30 254400 OAK RD 0.000 0.307 Rural Local L 4.0 20 50 427500 OAK VIEW AVE 0.000 0.058 Rural Local L 94 18 50

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-50

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

170800 OAKDALE AVE 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 10.0 28 351200 OAKLEA DR 0.000 1.512 Rural Major Collector L 84 19.6 22 1200 351200 OAKLEA DR 1.512 2.534 Urban Major Collector L 84 22 1700 529900 OCEAN WAY 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 67 6.3 16 531700 OCEANA DR 0.000 0.450 Urban Local L 86 14.0 24 270 171500 OLD COBURG RD 0.000 0.473 Urban Local L 51 9.3 20 120 612400 OLD GIUSTINA MILL RD 0.000 0.353 Rural Local L 82 16.3 20 110 439600 OLD LORANE RD 0.000 0.727 Rural Local R 73 20 180 198500 OLD MARCOLA RD 0.000 0.597 Rural Local R 16 30 612900 OLD MILL RD 0.000 0.007 Urban Local L 98 13 612900 OLD MILL RD 0.007 0.048 Urban Local L 13 612900 OLD MILL RD 0.048 0.091 Urban Local L 13 194500 OLD MOHAWK RD 0.000 0.190 Rural Minor Collector L 80 30 130 194500 OLD MOHAWK RD 0.190 1.433 Rural Minor Collector L 77 30 1250 194500 OLD MOHAWK RD 1.433 1.470 Rural Local L 78 30 240 194500 OLD MOHAWK RD 1.470 3.152 Rural Local L 78 24 900 622900 OLD PENGRA RD 0.000 0.130 Rural Local R 89 20 30 622900 OLD PENGRA RD 0.130 1.641 Rural Local R 59 22 216800 ORCHARD AVE 0.000 0.676 Rural Local L 86 20 650 216805 ORCHARD AVE (Y) 0.000 0.036 Rural Local L 94 19 376000 ORCHARD RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 90 25 130 376000 ORCHARD RD 0.500 0.922 Rural Local L 82 20 230 159600 ORIOLE ST 0.000 0.266 Urban Local L 95 13.0 36 330 319100 OROYAN AVE 0.000 0.023 Urban Local L 91 36 319100 OROYAN AVE 0.023 0.067 Urban Local L 89 15.0 18 102600 OSAGE ST 0.000 0.098 Urban Local L 100 9.5 26 60 523800 OTTER WAY 0.000 0.277 Rural Local L 67 12.0 24 90 153200 OTTO ST 0.000 0.175 Urban Local L 96 13.0 28 191100 OTTO ST 0.000 0.156 Urban Local L 53 6.3 20 267500 OVERHOLSER RD 0.000 1.033 Rural Local R 62 9.0 18 130 132400 OWOSSO DR 0.000 0.382 Urban Local L 94 17.6 28 1100 327200 OXFORD CT 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 82 12.0 28 160 535000 PACIFIC AVE 0.000 0.277 Urban Local L 92 22 190 107300 PAGE RD 0.000 0.126 Rural Local L 77 7.5 22 140

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-51

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

161700 PAIUTE LN 0.000 0.187 Rural Local L 75 28 325200 PALACE ST 0.000 0.145 Urban Local L 95 11.0 28 408600 PANTHER CR RD 0.000 2.200 Rural Local L 81 20 180 408600 PANTHER CR RD 2.200 2.242 Rural Local R 92 16 130 408600 PANTHER CR RD 2.242 5.160 Rural Local R 16 608400 PAPENFUS RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 87 12.0 18 210 608400 PAPENFUS RD 0.500 1.000 Rural Local L 86 16 608400 PAPENFUS RD 1.000 1.164 Rural Local L 85 16 402900 PARADISE DR 0.000 0.720 Rural Local L 89 11.5 22 402900 PARADISE DR 0.720 1.505 Rural Local R 15 402900 PARADISE DR 1.505 1.730 Rural Local R 18 138000 PARK AVE 0.000 0.786 Urban Major Collector L 94 13.6 26 1600 362700 PARK ST 0.000 0.183 Rural Local L 44 14 404000 PARKER LN 0.000 0.210 Rural Local L 79 7.5 18 200 527700 PARKSIDE DR 0.000 0.200 Urban Local L 73 10.0 22 131900 PARNELL DR 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 94 12.0 30 90 131900 PARNELL DR 0.100 0.185 Urban Local L 92 13.0 26 190 134300 PARNELL ST 0.000 0.126 Urban Local L 90 21.0 28 500 134300 PARNELL ST 0.126 0.197 Urban Local L 92 16.5 32 196600 PARSONS CR RD 0.000 2.356 Rural Minor Collector M 92 16.5 22 900 196600 PARSONS CR RD 2.356 3.063 Rural Minor Collector M 92 22 107500 PARTRIDGE LN 0.000 0.380 Rural Local L 77 14.0 20 120 159700 PARTRIDGE WAY 0.000 0.245 Urban Local L 89 16.5 36 612200 PARVIN RD 0.000 0.610 Rural Local R 92 20.5 22 280 612200 PARVIN RD 0.610 0.800 Rural Local L 58 20 198000 PASCHELKE RD 0.000 1.369 Rural Local L 76 19.0 24 200 198700 PAULS RD 0.000 0.483 Rural Local R 93 16.5 22 348800 PAYNE RD 0.000 0.174 Rural Local L 57 20 40 348805 PAYNE RD (Y) 0.000 0.024 Rural Local L 22 415000 PEACEFUL VALLEY RD 0.000 1.140 Rural Local L 94 24 700 163900 PEARL ST 0.000 0.390 Urban Minor Arterial L 97 26 5400 163900 PEARL ST 0.390 0.540 Urban Minor Arterial L 61 45 163900 PEARL ST 0.540 0.561 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 24 163900 PEARL ST 0.561 0.635 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 24 15400

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-52

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

313100 PEBBLE BEACH LN 0.000 0.125 Rural Local L 98 12.5 28 90 188600 PEEBLES RD EAST 0.000 0.093 Rural Local L 73 10.5 16 90 186400 PEEBLES RD WEST 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 73 10.5 16 90 622800 PENGRA CONN 0.000 0.027 Rural Local L 98 24 1250 622895 PENGRA CONN (Y) 0.000 0.018 Rural Local L 98 20 622700 PENGRA RD 0.000 4.366 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 64 40 3050 622700 PENGRA RD 4.366 4.999 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 64 40 2050 622705 PENGRA RD (FRONTAGE) 0.000 0.235 Rural Local L 88 16 625000 PENINSULA RD 0.000 0.760 Rural Local R 73 24 140 625000 PENINSULA RD 0.760 4.000 Rural Local R 20 625000 PENINSULA RD 4.000 5.140 Rural Local R 86 22 625000 PENINSULA RD 5.140 7.135 Rural Local R 22 625000 PENINSULA RD 7.135 7.622 Rural Local R 89 22 80 436600 PENN RD 0.000 0.042 Rural Local L 89 15 50 436600 PENN RD 0.042 6.608 Rural Local R 9.0 15 436600 PENN RD 6.608 6.770 Rural Local R 20 436600 PENN RD 6.770 6.794 Rural Local R 88 20 110 163100 PEPPERMINT LN 0.000 0.136 Rural Local L 81 28 80 258000 PERKINS CR RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 86 20 180 258000 PERKINS CR RD 0.500 0.850 Rural Local L 86 12.8 19 258000 PERKINS CR RD 0.850 1.470 Rural Local R 80 16 258000 PERKINS CR RD 1.470 1.600 Rural Local R 80 14 406600 PERKINS RD 0.420 0.443 Rural Minor Collector L 88 15.3 26 406600 PERKINS RD 0.443 1.110 Rural Minor Collector L 88 26 1050 406600 PERKINS RD 1.110 2.822 Rural Minor Collector L 87 13.3 26 900 426400 PETZOLD RD 0.000 2.457 Rural Minor Collector R 65 17.5 24 280 152700 PHEASANT BLVD 0.220 0.414 Urban Local L 95 15.0 42 500 152700 PHEASANT BLVD 0.414 0.483 Urban Local L 93 22 152700 PHEASANT BLVD 0.483 0.812 Urban Local L 95 9.9 24 152730 PHEASANT BLVD (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 82 28 152740 PHEASANT BLVD (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 92 26 152750 PHEASANT BLVD (CUL) 0.000 0.031 Urban Local L 89 26 609400 PHEASANT LN 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 96 22 380 609400 PHEASANT LN 0.110 1.204 Rural Local L 89 9.5 22 340

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-53

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

429000 PICKENS RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 72 22 430 429000 PICKENS RD 0.500 1.394 Rural Local L 65 6.3 18 195400 PICO ST 0.000 0.106 Rural Local L 89 22 60 425400 PINE GROVE RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Major Collector R 87 17.5 22 550 425400 PINE GROVE RD 1.000 2.573 Rural Major Collector R 83 19.0 22 460 425400 PINE GROVE RD 2.573 2.600 Rural Local L 83 22 425400 PINE GROVE RD 2.600 2.822 Rural Local L 77 13.0 22 160 171800 PINEDALE AVE 0.000 0.099 Urban Local L 86 13.0 28 125300 PINEWOOD TER 0.000 0.088 Urban Local R 52 14 102500 PINYON ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 100 9.0 26 80 196700 PIOCH LN 0.000 0.514 Rural Local L 79 20 90 194600 PIONEER PARKWAY EAST 1.700 1.781 Urban Minor Arterial L 63 30 6650 190400 PIONEER PARKWAY WEST 0.000 0.304 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 30 6650 190400 PIONEER PARKWAY WEST 0.304 0.313 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 30 360300 PITNEY LN NO 0.000 1.380 Rural Local L 100 20 490 360300 PITNEY LN NO 1.380 1.509 Rural Local L 100 20 500 360600 PITNEY LN SO 0.000 0.493 Rural Local L 22 20 622500 PLACE RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Major Collector L 93 26 100 622500 PLACE RD 0.040 0.100 Rural Major Collector L 91 26.3 18 622500 PLACE RD 0.100 0.942 Rural Major Collector R 84 22 90 622500 PLACE RD 0.942 2.500 Rural Major Collector R 98 18.4 22 1150 622500 PLACE RD 2.500 4.490 Rural Major Collector R 98 18.4 22 1000 622520 PLACE RD (OLD) 0.000 0.121 Rural Local L 100 19 271600 PLASTER RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 24 12.3 16 20 121800 PLAYWAY RD 0.000 0.203 Rural Local L 56 18 149900 PONDEROSA CT 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 82 26 434800 POODLE CR RD 0.000 3.138 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 85 21.3 26 1150 434800 POODLE CR RD 3.138 6.771 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 85 27.5 26 900 434895 POODLE CR RD (Y) 6.752 6.771 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 83 30 364500 POPE RD 0.000 0.602 Rural Local L 95 18 100 321200 POPLAR ST 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 90 18.0 26 507600 PORTAGE WAY 0.000 0.800 Rural Local L 8.0 12 40 365200 POST RD 0.000 1.120 Rural Local L 13 70 409300 POWELL RD 0.000 0.427 Rural Local L 73 18 60

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-54

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

164000 POWER LINE RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 89 14.5 26 950 164000 POWER LINE RD 0.500 1.000 Rural Local L 85 26 164000 POWER LINE RD 1.000 2.530 Rural Local L 87 16.0 26 900 164005 POWER LINE RD (Y) 0.000 0.067 Rural Local L 93 25 347000 PRAIRIE RD 0.118 0.690 Urban Minor Arterial L 97 26.5 40 11850 347000 PRAIRIE RD 0.690 1.640 Urban Minor Arterial L 97 20.0 44 11100 347000 PRAIRIE RD 1.640 1.939 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 24 5200 347000 PRAIRIE RD 1.939 2.211 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 20.0 24 3950 347030 PRAIRIE RD 2.221 3.116 Rural Major Collector L 84 30 5350 347030 PRAIRIE RD 3.116 5.500 Rural Major Collector L 84 30 4050 347030 PRAIRIE RD 5.500 7.286 Rural Major Collector L 88 30 3300 347030 PRAIRIE RD 7.286 7.850 Rural Major Collector L 88 30 3300 347030 PRAIRIE RD 7.850 8.030 Rural Major Collector L 71 22 347080 PRAIRIE RD 8.030 8.050 Rural Major Collector L 75 22 347080 PRAIRIE RD 8.050 9.250 Rural Major Collector L 75 28.5 22 1350 350600 PRAIRIE RD CONN 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 91 38 3450 519000 PREACHER CR RD 0.000 0.496 Rural Local R 81 19.0 20 435000 PRICE RD 0.000 0.704 Rural Local L 4.0 14 20 360900 PURKERSON RD 0.000 1.517 Rural Local L 100 8.0 22 120 253500 QUAGLIA RD 0.000 0.660 Rural Local L 45 5.8 18 210 241500 QUAIL LOOP RD 0.000 0.648 Rural Local M 71 24 334100 QUIET LN 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 92 15.0 32 331200 QUINCE ST 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 89 15.0 26 331300 QUINCE ST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 95 15.0 26 331210 QUINCE ST CUL 0.000 0.059 Urban Local L 94 29 331350 QUINCE ST CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 92 28 612100 R R ANDERSON RD 0.000 0.034 Rural Local L 96 19 612100 R R ANDERSON RD 0.034 0.345 Rural Local L 9.0 14 270400 RACHEL RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 53 16 260 361600 RAILROAD ST 0.000 0.135 Rural Local L 98 20 122200 RAINBOW VALLEY RD 0.000 0.515 Rural Local R 16 40 122200 RAINBOW VALLEY RD 0.515 0.534 Rural Local L 86 16 123800 RAINIER DR 0.000 0.130 Urban Local L 50 22 30 607300 RAINTREE ST 0.000 0.127 Rural Local L 94 12.5 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-55

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

275000 RAISOR RD 0.000 0.994 Rural Local R 68 10.3 18 100 161800 RALEIGHWOOD AVE 0.000 0.233 Urban Local L 97 8.0 26 310 191700 RAMBLING DR 0.000 0.290 Urban Local L 96 16.5 28 1250 155900 RANCH CORRAL DR 0.000 0.068 Urban Local L 90 6.0 26 155800 RANCH DR 0.000 0.137 Urban Local L 95 6.0 28 245500 RAT CR RD 0.000 1.426 Rural Local L 36 11.0 20 300 610400 RATTLESNAKE RD 0.000 2.250 Rural Major Collector R 88 23.3 26 1400 610400 RATTLESNAKE RD 2.250 4.474 Rural Major Collector R 86 24 1150 610495 RATTLESNAKE RD (Y) 4.403 4.446 Rural Major Collector L 77 24 611000 RATTLESNAKE RD NO 0.000 0.195 Rural Local L 92 10.8 24 650 123300 RAVEN OAKS DR 0.000 0.204 Rural Local L 85 24 104700 RAYNER AVE 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 85 36 320 104700 RAYNER AVE 0.140 0.210 Urban Local L 85 32 196900 REGAL LN 0.000 0.280 Rural Local L 88 22 267200 REPSLEGER BRANCH RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Local R 3.0 15 40 267000 REPSLEGER RD 0.000 0.874 Rural Local L 71 13.0 18 90 121900 RESTWELL RD 0.000 0.210 Rural Local L 62 16 10 121900 RESTWELL RD 0.480 0.530 Rural Local L 100 20 623500 REUBEN LEIGH RD 0.000 0.790 Rural Local R 84 18 110 623500 REUBEN LEIGH RD 0.790 1.220 Rural Local L 84 22 623100 REUBEN LEIGH RD NO 0.000 0.030 Rural Local L 86 14 319700 REVELL ST 0.000 0.139 Urban Local L 89 14.5 22 319750 REVELL ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 97 32 123700 REYNOLDS DR 0.000 0.240 Urban Local R 75 22 80 528000 RHODODENDRON DR 3.440 5.112 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 83 10.5 28 2250 531400 RHODODENDRON LP 0.000 0.420 Urban Local L 80 11.0 22 90 183900 RHODODENDRON ST 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 95 11.0 26 526900 RHODOWOOD DR 0.000 0.293 Urban Local L 85 10.3 24 210 504400 RICE RD 0.000 0.578 Rural Local L 92 6.5 20 504490 RICE RD CUL 0.000 0.028 Rural Local L 78 20 501800 RICHARDSON RD 0.000 0.100 Rural Minor Collector M 72 9.0 18 140 438600 RICHARDSON UPRIVER 0.000 0.440 Rural Local R 74 18 438600 RICHARDSON UPRIVER 0.440 5.343 Rural Local R 13 102200 RICHLAND ST 0.000 0.194 Urban Local L 100 16.0 32 70

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-56

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

102210 RICHLAND ST CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 100 35 428900 RICHMOND ST 0.000 0.156 Rural Local L 91 18 50 210600 RICKETTS RD 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 18 40 210600 RICKETTS RD 0.080 0.132 Rural Local L 18 210600 RICKETTS RD 0.132 0.160 Rural Local L 18 210600 RICKETTS RD 0.160 0.800 Rural Local L 18 272700 RIDGE DR 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 75 10.0 22 272740 RIDGE DR CUL 0.000 0.045 Rural Local L 70 21 190300 RIDGE TOP DR 0.000 0.240 Rural Local R 66 24 220 131300 RIDGEFIELD ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 94 10.0 26 130 131300 RIDGEFIELD ST 0.100 0.186 Urban Local L 94 14.0 26 140 605800 RIDGEWAY RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Minor Collector R 95 11.0 26 800 605800 RIDGEWAY RD 1.000 1.500 Rural Minor Collector R 92 22 605800 RIDGEWAY RD 1.500 2.540 Rural Minor Collector L 80 14.7 24 420 125700 RIDGEWOOD DR 0.000 0.208 Rural Local R 41 14 50 274100 RILEY LN 0.000 0.220 Rural Local R 92 11.3 20 319000 RIO VISTA AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 336540 RISDEN PL CUL 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 86 32 336500 RISDEN PLACE 0.000 0.230 Urban Local L 80 10.0 32 216200 RIVER DR 0.000 1.030 Rural Local L 61 20 1000 216200 RIVER DR 1.030 2.943 Rural Local L 87 13.7 22 800 216205 RIVER DR (Y) 0.000 0.019 Rural Local L 90 27 325800 RIVER LP #1 0.000 0.244 Urban Major Collector L 89 7.0 26 1750 325800 RIVER LP #1 0.244 0.440 Urban Local L 89 26 1300 325800 RIVER LP #1 0.440 0.880 Urban Local L 92 25 800 325800 RIVER LP #1 0.880 1.181 Urban Local L 92 22 350 325800 RIVER LP #1 1.181 1.194 Urban Local L 92 22 325800 RIVER LP #1 1.194 1.257 Urban Local L 92 22 700 325800 RIVER LP #1 1.257 2.084 Urban Local L 92 22 550 318500 RIVER LP #2 0.000 0.990 Urban Minor Collector L 85 18.0 22 3700 318500 RIVER LP #2 0.990 1.016 Rural Local L 95 22 318500 RIVER LP #2 1.016 1.180 Rural Local L 95 22 250 110000 RIVER RD 0.000 0.430 Urban Minor Arterial L 83 36 4100 110000 RIVER RD 0.430 0.610 Urban Minor Arterial L 88 34

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-57

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

110000 RIVER RD 0.610 1.200 Rural Minor Arterial L 88 23.7 34 3650 110000 RIVER RD 1.200 1.600 Rural Minor Arterial L 95 34 4400 110000 RIVER RD 1.600 2.426 Rural Minor Arterial L 86 34 110000 RIVER RD 2.426 3.086 Rural Minor Arterial L 89 34 110000 RIVER RD 3.086 4.174 Rural Minor Arterial L 85 26.0 34 4400 110000 RIVER RD 4.174 5.484 Rural Minor Arterial L 83 34 5800 110000 RIVER RD 5.484 7.340 Rural Minor Arterial L 86 34 6700 110000 RIVER RD 7.340 7.366 Rural Minor Arterial L 69 42 7000 110000 RIVER RD 7.366 7.747 Urban Minor Arterial L 69 42 7050 110000 RIVER RD 7.747 7.753 Urban Minor Arterial L 69 42 110000 RIVER RD 7.753 7.850 Urban Minor Arterial L 87 48 110000 RIVER RD 7.850 7.920 Urban Minor Arterial L 86 60 110000 RIVER RD 7.920 8.320 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 70 11050 110000 RIVER RD 8.320 8.587 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 70 13600 110000 RIVER RD 8.587 9.377 Urban Principal Arterial L 90 70 24800 110000 RIVER RD 10.202 10.380 Urban Principal Arterial L 67 32 110000 RIVER RD 10.380 11.549 Urban Principal Arterial L 80 70 20850 110000 RIVER RD 12.234 12.281 Urban Principal Arterial L 87 30 627800 RIVERSIDE DR 0.000 0.582 Rural Local L 71 7.0 22 20 627900 RIVERSIDE LP 0.000 0.105 Rural Local L 65 6.5 22 504000 RIVERVIEW AVE 0.000 0.784 Rural Local L 91 18.3 22 170 313500 RIVERVIEW DR 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 94 20 130 313500 RIVERVIEW DR 0.500 0.946 Rural Local L 80 16 156300 RIVIERA CT 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 94 12.0 26 315800 ROBBIE ST 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 94 15.0 32 628100 RODEO WAY 0.000 0.065 Rural Local L 66 11.0 22 601800 RODGERS RD 0.000 0.660 Rural Local L 91 20 100 601800 RODGERS RD 0.660 0.678 Rural Local L 85 20 601800 RODGERS RD 0.678 1.200 Rural Minor Collector L 85 20 360 601800 RODGERS RD 1.200 1.239 Rural Minor Collector R 84 20 601800 RODGERS RD 1.239 3.000 Rural Local R 84 20 140 610300 ROGERS LN 0.000 0.538 Rural Local L 76 10.8 22 184600 ROSE BLOSSOM DR NO 0.000 0.132 Urban Local L 100 13.0 28 170 184700 ROSE BLOSSOM DR SO 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 89 8.0 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-58

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

506200 ROSE HILL RD 0.000 0.418 Rural Local R 63 11.5 16 220 110400 ROSE ST 0.000 0.340 Rural Local L 80 18.0 22 70 347900 ROSE ST NO 0.359 0.523 Urban Local L 92 29 750 347800 ROSE ST SO 0.000 0.052 Urban Local L 97 9.0 18 325500 ROSEMARY AVE 0.000 0.129 Urban Local L 97 7.0 26 141500 ROSETTA AVE 0.000 0.212 Urban Local L 90 10.5 24 300 133800 ROSEWOOD AVE EAST 0.000 0.338 Urban Local L 98 15.0 28 1150 140600 ROSSMORE ST 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 91 8.0 26 137900 ROSY TURN 0.000 0.071 Urban Local L 85 9.0 26 276000 ROUSE RD NO 0.000 0.310 Rural Local L 4.0 15 20 277000 ROUSE RD SO 0.000 0.200 Rural Local L 4.0 12 10 253100 ROW RIVER CONN #1 0.000 0.074 Rural Minor Collector L 91 32 950 253000 ROW RIVER CONN #2 0.000 0.124 Rural Local L 89 24 220 253005 ROW RIVER CONN #2 (Y) 0.000 0.019 Rural Local L 86 27 240000 ROW RIVER RD 1.042 1.795 Urban Minor Arterial L 82 30 7600 240000 ROW RIVER RD 1.795 1.900 Urban Minor Arterial L 82 30 240000 ROW RIVER RD 1.900 1.908 Urban Minor Arterial L 92 40 240000 ROW RIVER RD 1.908 2.100 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 92 40 240000 ROW RIVER RD 2.100 2.116 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 40 240000 ROW RIVER RD 2.116 4.820 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 19.3 40 5000 240000 ROW RIVER RD 4.820 4.840 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 89 26 240000 ROW RIVER RD 4.840 6.000 Rural Minor Collector R 89 14.0 26 750 240000 ROW RIVER RD 6.000 11.000 Rural Minor Collector R 89 17.3 24 240000 ROW RIVER RD 11.000 12.000 Rural Minor Collector R 91 26 240000 ROW RIVER RD 12.000 12.052 Rural Minor Collector R 93 30 210 240000 ROW RIVER RD 12.052 12.910 Rural Major Collector R 93 22.5 30 1350 240000 ROW RIVER RD 12.910 13.310 Rural Major Collector R 93 32 240000 ROW RIVER RD 13.310 16.230 Rural Major Collector R 93 25.5 20 240000 ROW RIVER RD 16.230 16.310 Rural Major Collector R 79 20 800 240000 ROW RIVER RD 16.310 16.597 Rural Major Collector R 79 20 550 240000 ROW RIVER RD 16.597 19.778 Rural Minor Collector R 79 3.5 20 104800 ROWAN AVE 0.000 0.195 Urban Local L 87 15.0 32 145500 ROYAL AVE 2.267 2.930 Urban Major Collector L 61 22 3250 145500 ROYAL AVE 2.930 3.267 Urban Major Collector L 84 30 3950

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-59

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

445500 ROYAL AVE 3.267 4.323 Rural Minor Collector R 100 25.2 30 4000 445500 ROYAL AVE 4.323 5.060 Rural Minor Collector R 100 30 3000 445500 ROYAL AVE 5.060 5.078 Rural Minor Collector R 73 18 445500 ROYAL AVE 5.078 5.500 Rural Local L 73 12.0 18 445500 ROYAL AVE 5.500 5.707 Rural Local L 86 18 328000 RUBY AVE 0.000 0.495 Urban Local L 90 13.0 32 331000 RUBY AVE 0.050 0.322 Urban Minor Collector L 91 10.5 20 1550 331000 RUBY AVE 0.322 0.346 Urban Local L 90 32 265500 RUDOLPH RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 91 18 30 265500 RUDOLPH RD 0.040 0.628 Rural Local L 81 18 50 366200 RUST RD 0.000 0.995 Rural Local L 64 16 40 366240 RUST RD (STUB/BRIDGE) 0.000 0.006 Rural Local L 20 317900 RYAN ST & CUL 0.000 0.172 Urban Local L 91 18.0 36 317930 RYAN ST CUL 0.000 0.063 Urban Local L 91 16.0 32 198800 SADDLE VIEW DR 0.000 0.162 Rural Local R 89 21.5 22 336300 SAGE ST 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 96 14.5 28 220200 SAGINAW RD EAST 0.000 0.622 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 99 22.5 30 2350 220800 SAGINAW RD WEST 0.000 1.360 Rural Local R 98 20 480 531800 SALTAIRE ST 0.000 0.339 Urban Local L 99 12.0 24 531805 SALTAIRE ST 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 88 24 334900 SALTY WAY 0.000 0.102 Urban Local L 96 11.0 36 334980 SALTY WAY CUL 0.000 0.021 Urban Local L 94 32 364700 SAM BROWN RD 0.000 0.172 Rural Local L 17 20 364700 SAM BROWN RD 0.172 0.204 Rural Local L 12 364700 SAM BROWN RD 0.204 0.242 Rural Local L 17 320300 SANBORN AVE 0.000 0.250 Urban Local L 96 14.0 36 320320 SANBORN AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.049 Urban Local L 95 15.0 27 524300 SAND DUNE PARK DR 0.000 0.136 Rural Local L 96 3.8 18 532100 SANDRIFT CT 0.000 0.101 Urban Local L 96 24 531900 SANDRIFT ST 0.000 0.341 Urban Local L 97 12.0 24 122600 SANFORD RD 0.000 0.844 Rural Local L 66 22 180 327500 SANTA CLARA AVE 0.000 0.170 Urban Local L 91 30 3550 327500 SANTA CLARA AVE 0.170 0.390 Urban Local L 73 10.8 26 2300 327500 SANTA CLARA AVE 0.390 0.588 Urban Local L 93 10.5 33 850

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-60

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

327580 SANTA CLARA AVE CUL 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 91 28 523600 SANTA RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Local R 56 8.5 20 30 131200 SANTA ROSA ST 0.000 0.164 Urban Local L 92 10.5 25 250 131200 SANTA ROSA ST 0.164 0.186 Urban Local L 94 26 131200 SANTA ROSA ST 0.186 0.249 Urban Local L 94 25 120 413600 SARVIS BERRY LN 0.000 1.630 Rural Local L 72 9.5 22 320 196400 SAUNDERS RD 0.000 0.296 Rural Local R 85 6.8 18 70 197400 SAVAGE ST 0.000 0.156 Rural Local L 87 9.5 18 320800 SAVILLE AVE 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 87 36 320800 SAVILLE AVE 0.090 0.323 Urban Local L 94 15.0 28 320820 SAVILLE AVE CUL 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 89 28 320890 SAVILLE AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 96 14.0 32 320870 SAVILLE AVE CUL 'B' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 91 28 310800 SCENIC DR 0.000 0.765 Urban Minor Collector R 91 14.0 20 1600 321500 SCENIC DR 0.000 0.325 Urban Local L 73 13.5 36 1000 315700 SCENIC DR CUL 0.000 0.057 Urban Local L 94 17.0 32 186600 SCHAREN RD 0.000 0.670 Rural Local R 84 20 40 121300 SCHMORENBERG LN 0.000 0.310 Rural Local L 48 20 80 211800 SCOTT AVE 0.000 0.087 Rural Local L 9 10.5 18 256500 SCOTT RD 0.000 0.465 Rural Local L 40 18 90 317600 SCOTTDALE ST & CUL 0.000 0.170 Urban Local L 92 12.0 28 120 317600 SCOTTDALE ST & CUL 0.170 0.500 Urban Local L 91 16.0 36 1050 317650 SCOTTDALE ST CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 86 32 317660 SCOTTDALE ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 86 32 151200 SCOUT ACCESS RD 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 99 17.0 36 531300 SEA BREEZE LN 0.000 0.107 Urban Local L 94 8.5 22 60 523700 SEA LION DR 0.000 0.078 Rural Local L 95 11.0 24 40 531200 SEAPINE DR 0.000 0.438 Urban Local L 74 11.3 24 241000 SEARS RD 0.000 0.640 Rural Minor Collector L 70 22 1000 241000 SEARS RD 0.640 2.950 Rural Minor Collector L 81 9.1 22 241000 SEARS RD 2.950 3.257 Rural Minor Collector L 78 30 800 241000 SEARS RD 3.257 3.350 Rural Minor Collector L 78 30 800 241000 SEARS RD 3.350 9.610 Rural Minor Collector L 72 16.2 22 241000 SEARS RD 9.610 9.808 Rural Minor Collector L 83 32 800

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-61

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

188100 SEAVEY LP RD 0.000 3.791 Rural Minor Collector L 79 17.5 24 1700 188195 SEAVEY LP RD (Y) 3.773 3.795 Rural Minor Collector L 96 20 189300 SEAVEY WAY 0.000 0.257 Rural Local L 96 18 550 189300 SEAVEY WAY 0.257 0.288 Rural Local L 96 18 529700 SEBASTIAN ST 0.000 0.094 Urban Local R 82 5.8 16 90 126900 SEELY LN 0.000 0.400 Rural Local L 68 24 90 183100 SENECA AVE 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 86 7.5 16 149500 SEQUOIA AVE 0.000 0.280 Urban Local L 91 12.0 26 330 151300 SEWARD AVE 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 95 10.0 26 156200 SEWARD AVE 0.000 0.251 Urban Local L 91 4.0 26 180 195200 SHADOWS DR 0.000 0.580 Rural Local L 70 14.0 22 120 155000 SHADYLANE DR 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 72 14.0 26 1050 316600 SHAMROCK AVE 0.000 0.136 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 110 316700 SHAMROCK CT 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 318700 SHANNON ST 0.000 0.200 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 318700 SHANNON ST 0.200 0.393 Urban Local L 93 28 250 318780 SHANNON ST CUL 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 95 78 246000 SHARPS CR RD 0.000 2.588 Rural Minor Collector M 87 17.5 30 110 246000 SHARPS CR RD 2.588 6.431 Rural Minor Collector M 87 16.2 30 246000 SHARPS CR RD 6.431 9.650 Rural Minor Collector M 88 16.0 30 246000 SHARPS CR RD 9.650 10.160 Rural Minor Collector M 85 14.0 20 246000 SHARPS CR RD 10.160 12.000 Rural Minor Collector M 18 246000 SHARPS CR RD 12.000 17.498 Rural Minor Collector M 14 401600 SHEFFLER RD 0.000 1.870 Rural Minor Collector R 86 16.3 22 950 401600 SHEFFLER RD 1.870 4.197 Rural Minor Collector R 93 30 180 193400 SHENANDOAH LP RD 0.000 0.538 Rural Local R 98 13.0 22 120 336600 SHENSTONE DR 0.026 0.147 Urban Local L 94 14.0 32 213900 SHER KHAN RD 0.000 0.160 Rural Local L 57 20 170 213900 SHER KHAN RD 0.160 0.270 Rural Local L 58 20 213900 SHER KHAN RD 0.270 0.975 Rural Local L 67 20 222700 SHERRI CT 0.000 0.043 Rural Local L 54 12.5 24 324600 SHIRLEY ST 0.000 0.156 Urban Local L 92 12.0 22 275500 SHOESTRING RD 0.000 3.770 Rural Minor Collector M 96 9.0 22 180 522300 SHORE CREST DR 0.000 0.742 Rural Local L 70 4.0 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-62

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

375400 SHORE LN 0.000 0.980 Rural Local L 77 18 180 244000 SHOREVIEW DR 0.000 1.540 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 88 22.3 30 2100 244000 SHOREVIEW DR 1.540 6.500 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 87 34 244000 SHOREVIEW DR 6.500 6.583 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 90 30 1350 244095 SHOREVIEW DR (WAYSIDE) 0.000 0.106 Rural Local L 95 25 274000 SHORT RIDGE HILL RD 0.000 0.321 Rural Local R 86 7.5 22 110 345800 SIEGMAN-SMYTH RD 0.000 2.556 Rural Local R 68 6.3 21 122300 SIESTA LN 0.000 0.620 Rural Local L 58 22 70 533400 SILTCOOS STA RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Minor Collector M 82 14.0 20 70 533400 SILTCOOS STA RD 1.000 1.850 Rural Minor Collector M 87 16 533400 SILTCOOS STA RD 1.850 4.841 Rural Minor Collector M 8.0 22 131400 SILVER LN 0.458 0.511 Urban Major Collector L 78 34 3450 131400 SILVER LN 0.511 0.786 Urban Local L 33 28.0 34 750 326700 SILVER MEADOWS DR 0.000 0.194 Urban Local L 96 8.0 28 415500 SIMMONS RD 0.000 0.256 Rural Local R 85 7.8 18 80 409600 SIMONSEN RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 59 19 40 409600 SIMONSEN RD 0.500 1.500 Rural Local L 52 19 409600 SIMONSEN RD 1.500 1.729 Rural Local L 64 18 409605 SIMONSEN RD (Y) 0.000 0.157 Rural Local L 38 18 272000 SIMPSON CT 0.000 0.123 Rural Local R 84 20.3 24 439100 SIUSLAW FALLS RD 0.000 0.490 Rural Local L 78 16.5 18 10 439000 SIUSLAW RD 0.000 5.920 Rural Major Collector M 65 20 100 439000 SIUSLAW RD 25.351 26.750 Rural Major Collector M 92 18 439000 SIUSLAW RD 26.750 28.000 Rural Major Collector M 74 17.2 20 130 439000 SIUSLAW RD 28.000 28.500 Rural Major Collector M 73 20 439000 SIUSLAW RD 28.500 39.500 Rural Major Collector M 68 16.7 20 190 439000 SIUSLAW RD 39.500 44.207 Rural Major Collector M 59 26 700 144200 SKIP CT 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 94 13.0 26 133200 SKIPPER AVE 0.000 0.586 Urban Local L 90 13.5 34 1000 506600 SKUNK HOLLOW RD 0.000 0.320 Rural Local L 81 10.5 16 190 506605 SKUNK HOLLOW RD (Y) 0.000 0.056 Rural Local L 78 12 190900 SKYHAWK WAY 0.000 0.180 Rural Local R 88 12.0 24 142800 SMITHOAK ST 0.000 0.107 Urban Local L 94 14.5 36 142850 SMITHOAK ST (CUL) 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 90 28

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-63

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

374800 SNYDER RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 90 30 310 374800 SNYDER RD 0.050 0.500 Rural Local L 79 22 374800 SNYDER RD 0.500 0.905 Rural Local L 62 22 600 122800 SO MODESTO ST 0.000 0.444 Rural Local L 74 18 80 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 0.000 2.613 Rural Major Collector M 91 14.5 26 280 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 2.613 4.750 Rural Local R 80 16.5 26 140 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 4.750 5.750 Rural Local L 82 9.3 18 40 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 5.750 5.830 Rural Local L 86 22 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 5.830 5.850 Rural Local M 86 20 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 5.850 6.000 Rural Local M 87 14 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 6.000 6.251 Rural Local M 91 14 530000 SOUTH JETTY RD 0.000 0.620 Rural Minor Collector R 93 16.5 30 1600 101300 SOUTH M ST 0.000 0.223 Urban Local L 95 8.3 20 100 224000 SOUTH RIVER RD 0.000 0.316 Rural Major Collector L 100 9.3 22 950 523100 SOUTH SHORE DR 0.000 0.187 Rural Local L 87 6.5 14 190 532400 SOUTH SLOUGH RD 0.000 1.024 Rural Local L 73 10.5 20 100 223100 SOUTHGATE WAY 0.000 0.035 Rural Local L 83 24 313000 SOVERN LN 0.000 1.540 Rural Local L 86 22 750 330400 SPEARMINT ST 0.000 0.245 Urban Local L 96 14.0 32 330450 SPEARMINT ST CUL 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 93 20.0 32 413200 SPENCER CR RD 0.000 0.120 Rural Major Collector R 99 33 1350 413200 SPENCER CR RD 0.120 0.500 Rural Major Collector R 100 22 413200 SPENCER CR RD 0.500 3.285 Rural Major Collector R 100 19.0 22 1100 413295 SPENCER CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.030 Rural Major Collector L 89 22 244200 SPILLWAY RD 0.000 0.237 Rural Local L 62 8.6 18 70 374000 SPIRES LN (N) 0.000 0.020 Rural Local L 78 18 374000 SPIRES LN (N) 0.020 0.055 Rural Local L 78 18 150 172000 SPRAGUE RD 0.000 0.136 Urban Local L 92 22 120 172000 SPRAGUE RD 0.136 0.260 Urban Local L 92 22 172000 SPRAGUE RD 0.260 0.280 Urban Local L 80 24 172000 SPRAGUE RD 0.280 0.420 Urban Local L 62 18 189900 SPRING BLVD 0.000 0.103 Urban Local L 91 36 189901 SPRING BLVD NW RAMP #20 0.000 0.168 Urban Minor Arterial R 93 26 189902 SPRING BLVD SE RAMP #40 0.000 0.149 Urban Minor Arterial R 93 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-64

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

317500 SPRING CR DR 0.000 0.527 Urban Minor Collector L 96 13.0 24 3100 199600 SPRING VALLEY LN 0.000 0.070 Rural Local R 11 171700 SPRINGDALE AVE 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 94 13.0 28 347600 SPRUCE ST 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 96 5.5 24 347700 SPRUCE ST 0.000 0.091 Urban Local L 96 11.3 30 1350 371500 SQUIRE DR 0.000 0.208 Rural Local L 91 22 502000 STAGECOACH RD 0.000 2.500 Rural Minor Collector M 62 17 90 502000 STAGECOACH RD 2.500 4.200 Rural Minor Collector M 74 10.0 16 502000 STAGECOACH RD 4.200 9.704 Rural Minor Collector M 13.0 14 502000 STAGECOACH RD 9.704 11.488 Rural Minor Collector M 75 12.0 22 210 163200 STALLINGS LN 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 61 20 270 163200 STALLINGS LN 0.500 0.825 Rural Local L 38 12 608000 STAR RD 0.000 0.155 Rural Local R 94 14.0 18 90 323725 STARK ST CUL (SO) 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 94 28 323500 STARK ST N 0.000 0.119 Urban Local L 94 10.0 34 323540 STARK ST N CUL 0.000 0.092 Urban Local L 96 32 362100 STARLITE LN 0.000 0.479 Rural Local L 91 18 504300 STEELHEAD DRIVE 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 58 14.0 12 515000 STEINHAUER RD 0.000 0.157 Rural Local R 13 20 515000 STEINHAUER RD 0.157 0.180 Rural Local R 71 13 515000 STEINHAUER RD 0.180 0.820 Rural Local R 12.0 13 321100 STILLMAN AVE 0.000 0.218 Urban Local L 96 13.0 28 614600 STONE CT 0.000 0.033 Rural Local L 95 22 327700 STRATFORD ST 0.000 0.236 Urban Local L 93 14.5 33 230 405300 STRAWBERRY LN 0.000 0.443 Rural Local L 62 6.3 20 260 126800 STRAYER PL 0.000 0.123 Rural Local R 81 24 141900 STROME CT 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 79 8.0 26 434000 STURTEVANT DR 0.000 0.620 Rural Local L 87 20 140 434100 STURTEVANT DR 0.000 0.300 Rural Local R 14 434000 STURTEVANT DR 0.620 0.770 Rural Local R 77 14 317800 SUBURBAN AVE 0.000 0.184 Urban Local L 93 10.0 26 110 317880 SUBURBAN AVE CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 93 8.0 28 177100 SUE ANN CT 0.000 0.049 Urban Local L 96 10.0 24 365600 SUMICH RD 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 83 32 40

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-65

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

365600 SUMICH RD 0.060 0.170 Rural Local L 19 365600 SUMICH RD 0.170 0.280 Rural Local L 86 28 365600 SUMICH RD 0.280 0.623 Rural Local L 16 333300 SUMMER LN 0.000 0.172 Urban Local L 95 9.0 28 334800 SUMMER LN 0.000 0.127 Urban Local L 96 17.0 36 334840 SUMMER LN CUL 0.000 0.061 Urban Local L 96 18.0 32 414000 SUMMERVILLE RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 87 28 120 414000 SUMMERVILLE RD 0.050 0.855 Rural Local L 68 13.0 20 194800 SUNDERMAN RD 0.000 2.728 Rural Minor Collector L 90 28 950 125500 SUNDIAL AVE 0.000 0.130 Urban Local R 98 20 30 242600 SUNFLOWER CT 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 66 24 137500 SUNNYSIDE DR 0.000 0.472 Urban Local L 91 12.3 26 600 613500 SUNSET AVE 0.000 0.413 Urban Local L 82 10.5 20 222800 SUNSET DR 0.000 0.441 Rural Local R 53 8.0 20 271800 SUNSET VIEW RD 0.000 0.095 Rural Local L 17 12.3 18 10 133600 SUNVIEW ST 0.000 0.280 Urban Local L 86 13.3 26 200 333000 SUSAN ST 0.000 0.110 Urban Local L 95 13.0 28 512600 SUTHERLAND RD 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 39 11.0 22 512600 SUTHERLAND RD 0.080 0.110 Rural Local L 14 441000 SUTTLE RD 0.000 3.802 Rural Major Collector L 80 24 1450 522100 SUTTON EAST RD 0.000 0.066 Rural Local R 85 4.0 14 522400 SUTTON LAKE DR 0.000 0.207 Rural Local R 87 3.5 16 523000 SUTTON LAKE RD 0.000 0.460 Rural Minor Collector R 98 13.0 22 800 523000 SUTTON LAKE RD 0.460 2.688 Rural Minor Collector R 100 12.3 18 370 521800 SUTTON PL 0.000 0.048 Rural Local L 89 6.5 18 127200 SVARVERUD RD 0.000 0.460 Rural Local R 78 24 70 127200 SVARVERUD RD 0.460 0.860 Rural Local R 84 20 365800 SWAMP CR RD 0.000 1.485 Rural Local L 74 16 90 159800 SWAN CT 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 92 20 503600 SWEET CR RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Major Collector M 82 18.0 22 340 503600 SWEET CR RD 1.500 2.430 Rural Major Collector M 83 30.8 22 503600 SWEET CR RD 2.430 4.650 Rural Major Collector M 83 20.5 22 200 503600 SWEET CR RD 4.650 5.830 Rural Major Collector M 85 22 130 503600 SWEET CR RD 5.830 6.000 Rural Local L 85 22

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-66

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

503600 SWEET CR RD 6.000 10.587 Rural Local L 88 21.8 22 224800 SWEET LN 0.000 0.316 Urban Minor Collector L 89 27.8 30 950 224800 SWEET LN 0.316 0.500 Urban Minor Collector L 80 30 224800 SWEET LN 0.500 0.569 Urban Minor Collector L 80 22 224800 SWEET LN 0.569 0.718 Rural Minor Collector R 80 22 600 223300 TAFT AVE 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 18 348700 TALBOTT LN 0.000 0.143 Rural Local L 12 20 10 225000 TALEMENA DR 0.000 0.760 Rural Local R 83 18.5 22 700 151100 TAMARACK ST 0.000 0.143 Urban Local L 26 26 190 347200 TAMARACK ST 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 96 10.0 20 80 151100 TAMARACK ST 0.143 0.347 Urban Local L 42 10.5 26 1200 107100 TAMORA DR 0.000 0.270 Rural Local R 18 403700 TANYA LN 0.000 0.138 Rural Local L 88 7.5 18 336000 TARTON PL 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 95 12.0 32 218400 TATE RD EAST 0.000 0.202 Rural Local L 82 20 110 218200 TATE RD WEST 0.000 0.530 Rural Local L 74 10.3 18 100 223200 TAYLOR BUTTE RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 79 22 380 223200 TAYLOR BUTTE RD 0.500 0.717 Rural Local L 86 20 112600 TAYLOR RD 0.000 0.447 Rural Local L 77 8.3 20 30 186800 TEAGUE LP 0.000 0.250 Rural Local R 78 20 322300 TEMPA ST 0.000 0.145 Urban Local L 94 17.0 36 363500 TEMPLETON RD 0.000 1.400 Rural Local L 74 20 130 363500 TEMPLETON RD 1.400 2.432 Rural Local L 67 16 363500 TEMPLETON RD 2.572 4.847 Rural Local R 521000 TEN MILE RD 0.000 2.012 Rural Minor Collector M 7.0 14 80 521000 TEN MILE RD 2.012 2.143 Rural Minor Collector M 86 14 521000 TEN MILE RD 2.143 8.340 Rural Minor Collector M 7.0 14 606200 TENAS LN 0.000 0.160 Rural Local L 88 5.3 18 322500 TERRA LINDA AVE 0.000 0.363 Urban Local L 97 14.0 36 500 525800 TERRACE VIEW DR 0.000 0.279 Urban Local L 82 9.5 22 260100 TERRITORIAL LN 0.000 0.237 Rural Local L 12 260100 TERRITORIAL LN 0.237 0.495 Rural Local R 12 260100 TERRITORIAL LN 0.495 0.699 Rural Local L 12 172100 THEONA DRIVE 0.000 0.183 Urban Local L 96 16.0 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-67

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

143000 THOMASON LN 0.024 0.127 Urban Local L 91 11.0 20 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Minor Collector M 66 20 40 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 0.050 2.988 Rural Minor Collector M 9.0 14 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 2.988 3.010 Rural Minor Collector M 14 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 3.010 4.300 Rural Minor Collector M 14 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 4.300 4.820 Rural Minor Collector M 82 10.5 16 50 407700 THOMS RD 0.000 0.246 Rural Local L 91 4.3 16 80 109900 THOMSON LN 0.000 0.253 Rural Local L 77 12.5 22 50 252200 THORNTON LN 0.020 0.150 Urban Local L 91 44 800 252200 THORNTON LN 0.150 0.185 Urban Local L 91 38 252200 THORNTON LN 0.185 0.246 Urban Local L 91 32 252200 THORNTON LN 0.246 0.518 Urban Local L 91 36 252000 THORNTON RD SO 0.143 0.150 Rural Minor Collector L 18 252000 THORNTON RD SO 0.150 0.284 Rural Minor Collector L 98 18 1500 315200 THUNDERBIRD DR 0.000 0.445 Urban Local L 89 15.0 36 130 315220 THUNDERBIRD DR 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 89 36 103500 THURSTON RD 0.000 1.082 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 29 470 103500 THURSTON RD 1.082 1.330 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 5.5 29 103500 THURSTON RD 1.330 1.877 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 29 431000 TIDBALL LN 0.130 0.400 Rural Local L 69 10.5 20 504800 TIERNAN RD EAST 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 94 12.5 16 10 504600 TIERNAN RD NO 0.000 0.129 Rural Local R 78 11.0 16 220 105600 TIKI LN 0.000 0.424 Rural Local R 80 12.0 22 300 323900 TILDEN ST 0.000 0.084 Urban Local L 91 14.0 28 606100 TILLICUM AVE 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 69 36 800 606100 TILLICUM AVE 0.050 0.260 Rural Local L 81 5.3 18 606100 TILLICUM AVE 0.260 0.318 Rural Local L 63 16 160200 TINAMOU LN 0.000 0.125 Urban Local L 93 14.3 36 607700 TINKER RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 98 12.0 16 70 225200 TIOGA CT 0.000 0.142 Rural Local R 92 11.0 22 225100 TIOGA DR 0.000 0.190 Rural Local M 100 12.5 22 319600 TIPTON AVE 0.000 0.065 Urban Local L 96 14.0 22 323800 TIVOLI ST 0.000 0.228 Urban Local L 96 14.0 36 223400 TOBIASSON RD 0.000 0.135 Rural Local R 95 11.8 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-68

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

351500 TOFTDAHL LN NO 0.000 1.690 Rural Local L 95 20 410 351800 TOFTDAHL LN SO 0.000 0.323 Rural Local L 78 20 190 107400 TONGA LN 0.000 0.470 Rural Local R 91 20.0 22 178000 TORR AVE 0.000 0.111 Urban Local L 95 15.0 32 178060 TORR AVE CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 96 15.0 32 436000 TORRENCE RD 0.000 0.229 Rural Local R 7.5 18 50 436000 TORRENCE RD 0.229 0.367 Rural Local L 12 508500 TRAIL CR RD 0.000 0.580 Rural Local R 2.0 13 437400 TRANSFORMER RD 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 83 22 329000 TRAVIS AVE 0.000 0.160 Urban Local L 92 20.0 36 216100 TREADWELL RD 0.000 0.061 Rural Local L 98 29.8 22 240 194900 TREE FARM RD 0.000 0.973 Rural Local L 70 18 250 194905 TREE FARM RD (Y) 0.000 0.064 Rural Local L 84 20 526800 TREEWOOD DR 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 92 10.3 24 120 366400 TRIANGLE LAKE RES RD 0.000 0.438 Rural Local R 14 70 400900 TRIPP RD 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 10 605600 TUDOR ST 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 97 16.0 18 219300 TURKEY RUN RD 0.000 1.057 Rural Local R 75 9.5 20 200 345900 TURNBOW LN 0.000 1.524 Rural Local R 100 6.5 20 250 182600 TWIN BUTTES RD 0.000 0.471 Rural Local L 83 20 70 524700 TWIN FAWN DR 0.000 0.100 Rural Local R 100 10.0 20 107800 TWIN FIRS RD 0.000 0.682 Rural Local R 76 15.3 28 230 336200 TYSON LN 0.000 0.127 Urban Local L 91 13.0 32 336290 TYSON LN CUL 0.000 0.039 Urban Local L 87 13.0 32 442000 UNIT A (UNOFFICIAL NAME) 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 60 20 105300 UPLAND ST 0.000 0.108 Rural Local L 58 9.5 14 120 193100 UPPER CAMP CR CONN 0.000 0.030 Rural Local L 93 14 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Minor Collector M 79 17.8 22 1000 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 1.500 2.000 Rural Minor Collector M 77 22 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 2.000 3.000 Rural Minor Collector R 85 22 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 3.000 4.610 Rural Minor Collector R 86 22 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 4.610 5.764 Rural Minor Collector R 58 20 532200 UPPER DEADWOOD CR RD 0.000 1.073 Rural Local R 14 532200 UPPER DEADWOOD CR RD 1.073 1.951 Rural Local R 12

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-69

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

508400 UPPER NO FORK RD 0.000 3.044 Rural Minor Collector M 69 13.2 22 130 508400 UPPER NO FORK RD 3.044 3.150 Rural Local L 84 22 508400 UPPER NO FORK RD 3.150 4.115 Rural Local L 70 16.5 18 508400 UPPER NO FORK RD 4.115 6.695 Rural Local L 79 18.4 18 177000 VALENTINE CT 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 98 9.5 26 629500 VALLEY RD 0.000 0.816 Rural Local L 93 10.5 20 410 174101 VALLEY RIVER DR NW RP #21 0.000 0.205 Urban Principal Arterial L 64 31 4700 174102 VALLEY RIVER DR SW RP #30 0.000 0.346 Urban Principal Arterial L 70 26 5900 362900 VALLEY VIEW DR 0.000 0.070 Rural Local R 20 18 226100 VALLEY VIEW LN 0.000 0.298 Rural Local R 67 6.8 20 220900 VALLEY VIEW RD 0.000 0.092 Rural Local L 11 435500 VALLEY VISTA DR 0.000 0.320 Rural Local R 72 13.0 20 160100 VAN DUYN RD 0.000 0.147 Rural Local L 24 2150 160100 VAN DUYN RD 0.147 1.637 Rural Local L 66 21.0 24 1550 319200 VAN FOSSEN CT 0.000 0.052 Urban Local L 92 15.5 28 433500 VAUGHN RD 0.000 4.500 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 70 24 650 433500 VAUGHN RD 4.500 6.700 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 84 19.5 28 600 433500 VAUGHN RD 6.700 9.906 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 70 23.0 22 950 266500 VEATCH RD 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 81 18 140 266500 VEATCH RD 0.060 0.534 Rural Local R 75 18 180500 VERA DR 0.000 0.207 Urban Local L 100 8.0 32 120 332800 VERBENA AVE 0.000 0.163 Urban Local L 97 14.0 26 335300 VICTORIA LN 0.000 0.105 Urban Local L 78 16.0 32 522600 VIEW DR 0.000 0.186 Rural Local L 89 3.5 18 184100 VIEWMOUNT AVE 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 96 10.0 28 184200 VIEWMOUNT AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 94 26 340 184200 VIEWMOUNT AVE 0.120 0.246 Urban Local L 93 32 184260 VIEWMOUNT AVE CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 90 14.0 32 184280 VIEWMOUNT AVE CUL 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 96 32 311400 VIKING ST 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 91 28 80 156600 VILLA WAY 0.000 0.258 Urban Local L 93 12.0 28 120 346600 VINE ST 0.000 0.246 Urban Local L 97 12.0 22 250 141000 VIRGIL AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 90 14.0 30 141200 VIRGIL AVE 0.000 0.083 Urban Local L 94 11.5 32

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-70

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

430200 VISTA DR 0.000 0.341 Rural Local L 89 13.3 22 270 361000 VOGT RD 0.000 1.495 Rural Local L 92 21.7 24 350 225700 WAHEENA CT 0.000 0.046 Rural Local R 100 12.5 24 335400 WAKEFIELD CT 0.000 0.065 Urban Local L 83 15.0 25 255000 WALDON LN 0.000 0.205 Rural Local L 6.5 18 621000 WALLACE CR RD 0.000 2.653 Rural Local R 78 11.5 20 550 347100 WALNUT ST 0.000 0.119 Urban Local L 79 8.5 22 90 107000 WALTERVILLE LN 0.000 0.317 Rural Local L 71 9.3 22 120 107200 WALTERVILLE LP EAST 0.000 0.137 Rural Local L 100 8.3 22 110 332200 WARE LN 0.000 0.155 Urban Local L 96 18.0 32 332270 WARE LN CUL 'B' 0.000 0.033 Urban Local L 96 32 322900 WARRINGTON AVE 0.000 0.232 Urban Local L 93 16.0 28 402400 WARTHEN RD 0.000 1.180 Rural Minor Collector L 77 26 3000 402400 WARTHEN RD 1.180 4.008 Rural Minor Collector R 82 16.7 22 1150 345700 WASHBURN LN 0.000 1.480 Rural Local L 0 22 10 345700 WASHBURN LN 1.480 2.544 Rural Local L 90 22 310 345795 WASHBURN LN (Y) 0.000 0.029 Rural Local L 84 22 225500 WATAGUA PL 0.000 0.435 Rural Local R 100 13.0 22 225300 WATAGUA WAY & CUL 0.000 0.531 Rural Local R 100 9.5 22 321700 WATSON DR 0.000 0.150 Urban Local L 87 14.0 18 225600 WAUKEENA WAY & CUL 0.000 0.372 Rural Local R 100 13.0 24 151900 WAYSIDE LN & LP 0.000 0.610 Urban Local L 93 11.1 20 650 103900 WEAVER LN 0.000 0.070 Rural Local L 91 4.0 18 100 103900 WEAVER LN 0.070 0.230 Rural Local L 58 10.0 18 103900 WEAVER LN 0.230 0.360 Rural Local L 91 18 330500 WEBSTER ST 0.000 0.096 Urban Local L 97 5.5 18 331800 WEDGEWOOD DR 0.000 0.291 Urban Local L 93 4.5 26 650 214600 WEISS RD 0.000 2.052 Rural Local L 78 20 180 192300 WEMBERLY WAY 0.000 0.062 Urban Local L 98 14.0 28 197500 WENDLING RD 0.000 1.600 Rural Minor Collector R 65 18.5 24 1400 197500 WENDLING RD 1.600 3.570 Rural Minor Collector R 75 22 420 197500 WENDLING RD 3.570 3.875 Rural Minor Collector R 88 22 323600 WENDOVER ST 0.000 0.118 Urban Local L 93 17.0 28 324200 WENDOVER ST 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 92 14.0 36

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-71

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

627000 WEST BOUNDARY RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Minor Collector L 85 22 700 627000 WEST BOUNDARY RD 0.150 0.528 Rural Minor Collector L 89 14.5 22 627000 WEST BOUNDARY RD 0.528 1.680 Rural Minor Collector R 89 12.3 22 330 627000 WEST BOUNDARY RD 1.680 15.842 Rural Minor Collector R 9.0 22 401000 WEST DEMMING RD 0.000 0.849 Rural Local L 70 20 450 513400 WEST FORK INDIAN CR 0.000 3.330 Rural Local R 7.0 14 514200 WEST FORK RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 75 20 90 514200 WEST FORK RD 0.500 1.130 Rural Local L 86 13.1 20 514200 WEST FORK RD 1.130 3.560 Rural Local R 69 12.5 16 151000 WEST QUINALT AVE 0.000 0.284 Urban Local L 98 12.0 32 160 401800 WEST SHEFFLER RD 0.000 2.352 Rural Minor Collector R 77 12.0 30 250 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 0.000 1.422 Rural Major Collector R 78 20.8 26 600 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 1.422 2.000 Rural Major Collector R 78 26 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 2.000 3.050 Rural Major Collector R 84 24 800 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 3.050 3.569 Rural Major Collector R 65 20 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 3.569 5.643 Rural Major Collector M 65 20 650 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 5.643 6.065 Urban Major Collector M 65 20 1050 612895 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD (Y) 6.044 6.068 Urban Minor Collector R 89 18 605400 WESTMINSTER ST 0.000 0.254 Rural Local L 87 13.0 22 100 614500 WESTRIDGE AVE 0.000 0.293 Rural Local L 95 13.5 22 220 628000 WHEELER RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 92 11.5 20 900 628000 WHEELER RD 0.500 1.840 Rural Local L 91 11.5 25 600 628000 WHEELER RD 1.840 2.150 Rural Local L 92 26 628000 WHEELER RD 2.150 5.260 Rural Local L 89 6.8 22 650 252300 WHETHAM WAY 0.000 0.150 Urban Local L 98 8.8 20 197000 WHITMORE ST 0.000 0.217 Rural Local L 56 20 600 335700 WICKHAM CT 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 81 14.5 25 245800 WICKS RD 0.000 0.473 Rural Local L 88 11.5 24 380 172200 WILBUR AVE 0.000 0.497 Urban Local L 69 20 90 427800 WILDROSE LN 0.000 0.452 Rural Local L 86 20 429900 WILDWOOD RD 0.000 0.590 Rural Local L 63 6.3 22 220 321400 WILKES DR 0.000 0.290 Urban Major Collector L 90 18.0 32 3550 321400 WILKES DR 0.290 0.790 Urban Major Collector L 90 15.0 32 2650 321400 WILKES DR 0.790 0.932 Urban Major Collector L 92 10.0 22 800

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-72

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

321410 WILKES FRONTAGE RD 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 97 20 321412 WILKES FRONTAGE STUB RD 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 97 33 162000 WILKINS RD 0.000 1.608 Rural Local L 76 16.0 18 140 140000 WILLA ST 0.000 0.135 Urban Local L 91 14.0 26 166001 WILLAG RD NEE RAMP #10 0.000 0.285 Urban Principal Arterial L 90 22 2800 166100 WILLAGILLESPIE CONN #1 0.000 0.052 Urban Principal Arterial L 68 32 606000 WILLAMA VISTA ST 0.000 0.307 Rural Local L 88 8.5 18 311200 WILLAMETTE DR 0.000 1.000 Rural Local L 84 18 230 311200 WILLAMETTE DR 1.000 1.102 Rural Local L 92 12 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 4.160 4.213 Rural Major Collector R 87 30 1400 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 4.213 5.000 Rural Major Collector R 87 30 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 5.000 5.219 Rural Major Collector R 86 28 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 5.219 5.485 Rural Major Collector R 86 28 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 5.485 6.522 Rural Major Collector R 86 19.0 28 800 270700 WILLIAMS CREEK LOOP 0.000 0.327 Rural Local L 60 9.0 22 123500 WILLOW CR RD 1.546 1.858 Urban Local L 90 22 123500 WILLOW CR RD 1.858 2.855 Urban Local R 90 11.5 22 320500 WILLOWBROOK ST 0.000 0.147 Urban Local L 96 18.0 28 200 603400 WILLS RD 0.000 0.640 Rural Local R 100 14.5 18 80 271900 WILSON CREEK RD 0.000 0.858 Rural Local L 54 18.0 24 140 624500 WINBERRY CR RD 0.000 1.220 Rural Minor Collector M 94 20.0 26 290 624500 WINBERRY CR RD 1.220 4.420 Rural Minor Collector M 87 17.0 22 240 624500 WINBERRY CR RD 4.420 5.674 Rural Minor Collector M 79 7.0 20 624504 WINBERRY CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.023 Rural Minor Collector L 97 14 624505 WINBERRY CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.027 Rural Minor Collector L 96 14 605100 WINDING WAY 0.000 0.230 Rural Local R 66 12.5 20 525900 WINDWARD WAY 0.000 0.087 Urban Local L 75 11.5 22 90 612600 WINFREY RD 0.000 0.370 Urban Local L 84 18.3 20 800 612600 WINFREY RD 0.370 0.443 Urban Local L 89 12 612610 WINFREY RD (E) 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 93 29 161600 WINNEBAGO ST 0.000 0.062 Rural Local L 68 12.0 24 155700 WINSLOW AVE 0.000 0.096 Urban Local L 97 11.0 32 155750 WINSLOW AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.041 Urban Local L 93 15.0 32 161900 WINSTON PL 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 95 7.5 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-73

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

322600 WISTERIA ST 0.000 0.157 Urban Local L 91 14.0 32 241400 WITCHER GATEWAY RD 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 84 15.0 16 241400 WITCHER GATEWAY RD 0.100 0.653 Rural Local R 12.0 16 407800 WOLF CR RD 0.000 7.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 80 22.3 22 500 407800 WOLF CR RD 7.000 11.594 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 88 21.0 23 120 530700 WOODLANDS DR 0.000 0.433 Urban Local L 74 9.5 22 200 153300 WOODLANE DR 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 83 14.0 28 250 123100 WOODSIA LN 0.000 0.270 Rural Local R 16 20 193300 WORTH RD 0.000 0.508 Rural Local R 98 16.0 22 360 114200 YALE LN 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 95 15.5 20 30 271200 YEAROUS RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 59 10.3 20 60 170400 YENTA AVE 0.000 0.108 Urban Local L 100 14.0 30 170440 YENTA AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 100 32 153900 YOLANDA AVE 0.000 0.465 Urban Local L 100 14.9 36 800 162900 YOLANDA AVE 0.000 0.160 Urban Local L 93 10.0 18 180 162900 YOLANDA AVE 0.160 0.250 Urban Local L 96 13.0 36 162900 YOLANDA AVE 0.250 0.315 Urban Local L 95 13.0 18 153900 YOLANDA AVE 0.465 0.714 Urban Minor Collector L 100 34 2150 153900 YOLANDA AVE 0.830 1.210 Urban Local L 100 14.0 36 900 153910 YOLANDA AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.039 Urban Local L 65 32 104100 YORK LN 0.000 0.190 Rural Local L 87 8.0 32 80 327900 YORK ST 0.000 0.336 Urban Local L 87 14.0 33 420 327960 YORK ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 83 32 333100 YVONNE ST 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 96 17.0 28 186700 ZARZAMORA LN 0.000 0.110 Rural Local R 65 24 605900 ZEPHYR WAY 0.000 0.497 Rural Local L 71 12.5 18 490

Appendix C: Lane County Bicycle Map

The Lane County Bicycle Map is available in hard copy only at this time. Please contact Lane County Public Works Engineering, Transportation Planning Section, 682-6936.

Appendix D: Detailed Level of Service Methodology Level of service analysis of the roadway system is necessary for the Lane County Transportation System Plan. This analysis allows assessment of our transportation system’s performance. The methodology for the analysis comes from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Certain assumptions were made for Lane County to reflect specific conditions and move away from more general assumptions. Two-lane rural roadways were assumed for the analysis. Therefore, multi-lane or urban roadways will require separate, more specific analysis techniques to determine level of service. The operational function of two-lane, two-way rural roadways differs from multi-lane highways. Passing opportunities allow drivers to maintain their travel speed and therefore reduce travel time. On two-lane roadways, passing is only possible in the face of opposing traffic. As traffic volumes and passing demand increase, the volumes in the opposing direction also increase, reducing the opportunities to pass. When drivers experience delays due to reduced travel speeds and lack of passing opportunities, the level of service of the roadway deteriorates. The mixture of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream and steep roadway grades also limit passing opportunities and have the effect of reducing the level of service. Level of service (LOS) is graded on a letter scale from A to F. A being the highest level of service and F being the lowest. At LOS A, traffic flows freely, selecting desired travel speeds with ample passing opportunities. At LOS F, traffic flow is forced, the traffic volume has exceeded the capacity of the roadway to handle it and there are no passing opportunities. LOS D is generally considered to be the lowest tolerable level of service for roadways. Roadway designs attempt to operate at LOS D in only the worst case situations and preferably at higher levels of service. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has defined the following definition for level of service:

• LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent.

• LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic

stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desire speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior.

D-1

• LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.

• LOS D represents high-density, but stable, flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver

are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level.

• LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds

are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to “give way” to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because even small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.

• LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists

wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse it and queues begin to form. Operations within the queue are characterized by stopping and starting. Over and over, vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop. Level-of-service F is used to describe operating conditions within the queue, as well as the point of the breakdown. It should be noted, however, that in many cases once free of the queue, traffic may resume to normal conditions quite rapidly.

Level of service analysis for two-lane rural highways is found in Chapter 8 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Rural highways provide both mobility and accessibility for motorists. For major highways, the movement of traffic with a minimum of delay is its principal function. Although mobility is desirable, many highways provide the only means of access to an area. Percent time delay, the primary factor affecting highway level of service, reflects both mobility and accessibility. “Percent time delay is the average percent of the total travel time that all motorists are delayed in platoons while traveling a given section of highway”. The average travel speed and capacity utilization are secondary factors that determine level of service. The average travel speed reflects the mobility function and utilization of capacity reflects the accessibility function of the highway. On two-lane highways, the demand for passing increases as traffic volumes increase. Likewise, opportunities for passing decrease as traffic volumes in the opposite direction increase. When highway or traffic characteristics limit the ability to pass, vehicles are delayed and the level of service of the highway decreases.

D-2

The terrain type is one of several variables that must be defined in order to calculate road segment level of service. This analysis is for rural two-lane road segments and follows the methodology set forth on the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Our inventories currently provide most of the data necessary to determine roadway level of service, except for the terrain type. In order to enrich our inventory and facilitate the calculation of roadway level of service, we must also inventory the terrain type. Terrain type is a factor affecting the roadway conditions and ultimately its operational capacity. The horizontal and vertical alignment of a highway varies due to the topography through which it is constructed. The effects of terrain on traffic flow are most apparent when trucks are included in the traffic stream. In more severe terrain, steeper grades and curves affect the operation of trucks. In particular, significant long grades and sharp curves slow trucks down and limit passing opportunities for cars. The overall effect of the terrain type can be a reduction in the capacity of the roadway and its level of service. A general definition of terrain type from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual follows. • Level Terrain: Any combination of grades and horizontal and vertical alignment

that allows heavy vehicles to maintain approximately the same speed as passenger cars; this terrain generally includes short grades of no more than 1 to 2 percent.

• Rolling Terrain: Any combination of grades and horizontal and vertical alignment

that causes drivers of heavy vehicles to reduce speeds to substantially below those of passenger cars, but does not require operation at crawl speeds for any significant length of time.

• Mountainous Terrain: Any combination of grades and horizontal and vertical

alignment that causes drivers of heavy vehicles to operate at crawl speeds for significant distances or frequent intervals.

Crawl speed is the maximum sustained speed that heavy vehicles can maintain on an extended upgrade of a given percent. With these definitions in hand, we can classify our two-lane roadway segments into one of then three general terrain types (level, rolling, or mountainous). This classification provides the missing link in the calculation of our roadway system’s level of service. Other assumptions about the roadway include: percent of no passing zones in level, rolling and mountainous terrain; directional split of traffic volume; lane width; heavy vehicles in the traffic stream expressed as a percentage of trucks, recreational vehicles and buses; design speed; and the design hour factor relating the proportion of the average daily traffic volume expected to occur in the design hour.

D-3

• The percent of no passing zones are assumed to be 20% in level terrain, 40% in rolling terrain and 60% in mountainous terrain.

• The directional split of traffic is assumed to be 60%/40%. • Lane widths are assumed to be 11 feet. • Heavy vehicles in the traffic stream are estimated to be 5% for trucks, 2% for

recreational vehicles and 0% for buses. • The design speed of the roadway is assumed to be 60 miles per hour. • The design hour factor, K, is assumed to be 0.10 and represents the proportion of

the average daily traffic volume expected to occur in the design hour.

D-4

Rural Two-Lane Highway Level of Service Analysis 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Methodology with assumptions for Lane County The following tables and factors are used to calculate the roadway level of service. The final table, titled “Maximum ADT vs. Level of Service”, contains the maximum daily traffic volumes for each level of service for differing terrain types and roadway widths. The table is used by selecting the terrain type and roadway width. Then, compare the actual daily traffic volume to those in the table. The level of service is determined when the daily traffic volume does not exceed the tabulated volume. (8-1) Service Flow Rate (vph), SFi = 2800(vph) X (v/c)i X fd X fw X fhv

Volume/Capacity, (v/c)i (Table 8-1)

Percent No Passing

LOS Level 20%

Rolling 40%

Mountainous 60%

A 0.12 0.07 0.04 B 0.24 0.19 0.13 C 0.39 0.35 0.23 D 0.62 0.52 0.40 E 1.00 0.92 0.82 F - - -

Directional Split, fd (Table 8-4) (60/40)= 0.94

Lane and Shoulder Width, fw (Table 8-5) (11 foot Lanes)

Usable Shoulder

Width

LOS A-D

LOS

E

Road Width

0 0.49 0.66 18 (factors for 9 ft lanes) 0 0.54 0.71 19 (interpolated between

9&10 ft lanes) 0 0.58 0.75 20 (factors for 10 ft lanes) 0 0.62 0.79 21 (interpolated between

10&11 ft lanes) 0 0.65 0.82 22 1 0.70 0.85 23 (interpolated) 2 0.75 0.88 24 3 0.80 0.90 25 (interpolated) 4 0.85 0.92 26 5 0.89 0.93 27 (interpolated)

>= 6 0.93 0.94 >= 28

D-5

Heavy vehicle factor, fhv

(8-2) fhv = 1 / [1 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-1)] Assume percentage of trucks, PT (5%) = 0.05 Assume percentage of recreational vehicles, PR (2%) = 0.02 Assume percentage of buses, PB (0%) = 0.00

Passenger Car Equivalents, E, for trucks recreational vehicles and buses

(Table 8-6) LOS Level Rolling Mountainous

ET A 2.00 4.00 7.00 B and C 2.20 5.00 10.00 D and E 2.00 5.00 12.00

ER A 2.20 3.20 5.00 B and C 2.50 3.90 5.20 D and E 1.60 3.30 5.20

EB A 1.80 3.00 5.70 B and C 2.00 3.40 6.00 D and E 1.60 2.90 6.50

Heavy vehicle factor, fhv

LOS Level Rolling Mountainous A 0.93 0.84 0.72

B and C 0.92 0.79 0.65 D and E 0.94 0.80 0.61

Peak Hour Factor, PHF (Table 8-3) Level of Service A B C D E

PHF 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.95 1.00 Assume design hour factor, K = 0.10

D-6

Maximum ADT vs. Level of Service

ADTi (vpd) = [Service Flow Rate, SFi (vph)] X PHFi / K Level of Service

Road Width

A

B

C

D

E

Level Terrain 18 1311 2612 4338 7153 16357 19 1432 2852 4736 7810 17472 20 1552 3092 5134 8467 18588 21 1646 3279 5444 8977 19455 22 1739 3466 5754 9488 20322 23 1873 3732 6197 10218 21066 24 2007 3999 6639 10948 21809 25 2141 4265 7082 11678 22305 26 2275 4532 7524 12408 22801 27 2382 4745 7878 12992 23049

>=28 2489 4958 8233 13576 23296 Rolling Terrain

18 688 1792 3373 5113 12826 19 751 1957 3683 5583 13701 20 814 2121 3992 6052 14575 21 864 2249 4233 6418 15255 22 913 2377 4474 6783 15936 23 983 2560 4818 7305 16519 24 1053 2743 5163 7826 17102 25 1123 2926 5507 8348 17490 26 1194 3109 5851 8870 17879 27 1250 3255 6126 9287 18073

>=28 1306 3401 6402 9705 18268 Mountainous Terrain

18 340 1006 1818 2999 8717 19 371 1098 1985 3275 9312 20 403 1190 2152 3550 9906 21 427 1262 2281 3764 10369 22 451 1334 2411 3979 10831 23 486 1436 2597 4285 11227 24 521 1539 2782 4591 11623 25 555 1642 2968 4897 11887 26 590 1744 3153 5203 12152 27 618 1826 3301 5448 12284

>=28 646 1908 3450 5692 12416

D-7

E.1. - 1

Appendix E.1.Public Involvement Plan

Approved by Lane County Planning Commission February 5, 2002

Background

Oregon Revised Statutes and the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 660-012), regarding transportation(Transportation Planning Rule (TPR),) require the county to develop an essentially new TransportationSystem Plan that complies with the state rule. Lane County’s Transportation Plan and Master Road Plannow in effect was adopted in 1980. The 1980 plan is outdated as change has occurred over time andbecause the current state rule was adopted in 1991 and revised in 1993, 1995, 1998, and 1999. LaneCounty’s new Transportation System Plan (TSP) is in the process of development and is nearly ready forpublic review. The TPR also requires code amendments to implement the new TSP. Purpose

The purpose of adopting a new Transportation System Plan and associated code amendments is:• to replace the outdated, 1980 Transportation Plan and Master Road Plan;• to comply with the state Transportation Planning Rule;• to update Lane Code to implement the TSP and make housekeeping improvements;• to improve coordination between transportation system improvements and land use requirements;• to help promote and facilitate the multi-modal transportation needs of county citizens; and• to be a working document for county agencies, other local and state agencies, and developers.

Components of the Public Involvement Plan (PIP)

1. Staff

Staff from the county Engineering Division, Transportation Planning Section, will be responsible forcoordination with other agencies, stakeholders, and the public. This will include coordinating publicmeetings, scheduling Roads Advisory Committee, Lane County Planning Commission and Board ofCounty Commissioners work sessions and hearings, disseminating information to the public in general, aswell as soliciting input, and communicating how comments are considered and dealt with.

2. Agency and Stakeholder Coordination

As the draft becomes ready, staff will request the involvement, review, and comment of agencies andinterest groups whose interests and/or jurisdictions may be affected by the Transportation System Planand associated code amendments. Agencies and interest groups include:

Airports Department of Land Conservation and DevelopmentFire Protection Districts and Emergency Service Providers Gears, a recreational cycling club that frequently uses county roadsIncorporated CommunitiesLane County Land Management DivisionLane County Sheriff’s OfficeLane Transit DistrictOregon Department of TransportationOregon Division of State LandsPort of Siuslaw

E.1. - 2

Recognized Neighborhood Associations throughout Lane CountyRegion 2050 ProjectSchool DistrictsU.S. Army Corps of EngineersUtility and Service providers (telephone, gas, electric, cable, fiber optic, water, sewer)Watershed CouncilsWilliamette Valley Liveability Forum

Notices of meetings and agendas will be sent to all persons who request it. An introductory letter will besent to each of the above contacts requesting information about desired level of involvement. Parties willbe given the option of participating in technical review, only receiving public hearing notices, or notparticipating. Parties will be involved in the process at the level they request. All agency and interestgroup comments will be considered in finalizing the TSP.

3. Interested Parties Mailing List

An interest parties mailing list will be developed from the following sources:a. agency and stakeholder contacts listed aboveb. Board of County Commissioners agenda mailing listc. Lane County Planning Commission agenda mailing listd. Roads Advisory Committee agenda mailing liste. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) mailing listf. any other party requesting to be added to the list.

4. Web Site

Once the draft is ready for public review, it will be published on the county’s web site. The web site willencourage review of and written comment on the draft, provide information and updates about the publicinvolvement process and adoption process, and provide staff contact information. 5. Public Meetings

In 1995 Lane County Public Works held a series of ten public meetings, including one each in Eugeneand Florence and eight in rural communities around the county. No draft was ready for public review atthat time. Instead, staff sought feedback to inform initial preparation of the TSP. A summary of theresults of that effort is attached.

When draft materials are ready for public review, staff will schedule a second round of public meetingsfocusing on the following geographic areas: • Lane County’s coastal areas• McKenzie River area• South Lane County• Lorane area

Meeting notices will be publicized in local newspapers, including information about the web site and howto contact staff for more information.

6. Public Hearings

Lane Code Chapter 12 provides procedural requirements for processing plan amendments. At least onehearing before the Planning Commission and one before the Board of County Commissioners is required

E.1. - 3

prior to adoption. The Roads Advisory Committee public hearing will be scheduled jointly with thePlanning Commission. Hearings will be publicized in the following local county newspapers:

The Register-GuardCottage Grove SentinelSpringfield NewsSiuslaw NewsRiver ReflectionsWest Lane News

After each hearing is concluded, staff will prepare written responses to issues raised. The draft TSP andassociated code amendments will be amended as appropriate based upon direction of appointed andelected officials, and adopted by ordinance.

Appendix E.2.: Summary of 1995 Public Comments

Appendix E.2. - Page 1

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Bicycle/Pedestrian Comments/Requests Dorena Need more Cottage Grove connections to Row River Trail A logical route to provide a connection to the Row River Trail is improving Row River Road to accommodate

bicycles. TSP Project #67 identifies an urban standards project from the Urban Growth Boundary to Row River. Beyond that, the road generally meets minimum design standards and does not necessitate a capital improvement project to bring it up to standard.

Eugene Springfield needs bike/ped facility improvement TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield TSP, was adopted October, 2001. Specific requests not addressed by either TransPlan or the project list contained in the Lane County TSP can be forwarded to the City of Springfield for their consideration.

Eugene Promote Lane County for recreation and livability by creating a network of bicycle routes.

See project list and bicycle/pedestrian section of TSP. Specific comments on gaps in the system are needed to more fully address this comment.

Oakridge President Of Pathfinders Mountain Recreation Consultants; Tour de Lane concept of using timber-access roads, county and state roads linked into a mapped and signed system is a unique attraction to cyclists and a viable economic diversification tool for rural communities. Pave Thompson Creek Rd. in Mapleton to complete a loop that includes North Fork Siuslaw and Elk Tie Road. Paving gravel roads will attract more bicyclists to tour Lane County.

Thompson Creek Rd has a very low traffic volume. Thompson Creek Rd is partly paved and partly gravel, and it did not make the project list due to its very low ADT (40). Elk Tie Rd does not appear to be a county road. Generally the TSP supports bike facility improvements on roadways that access major destinations--roadway improvements designed only for recreational purposes have a lower priority.

Eugene Better/secure bike parking The City of Eugene has bike parking standards. The county TSP does not establish standards for bike parking in the areas under its jurisdiction. This is because the county road system is mostly rural. Bike parking security is more of an urban issue that can/should be addressed by individual city TSP's.

Eugene Also requests access be created for bikes through construction projects so unanticipated detours are not needed.

In most cases, the nature of road construction projects makes this difficult. Signed detour routes are provided as needed.

Eugene Improve bike shoulders, in particular: Crow Rd. is okay but could be a foot wider

A number of rural modernization projects on the TSP project list include the addition of or widening of paved shoulders for bicycle use (see project list). Crow Rd. was not identified for improvements--its width is not considered deficient to the point of necessitating a capital improvement project to bring it up to standard.

Eugene Also supports extension of Fern Ridge bike path and supports having it go under or over Bailey Hill Rd. Bailey Hill is too heavily trafficked at grade for crossing bikes.

The bike path to the Fern Ridge reservoir is identified in TransPlan as Project Number 426 on the Future (beyond 20-years) Project List. Lane County does not have a source of revenue that can be used for "off-right-of-way" improvements. State law restricts the use of the county's Road Fund to only improvements within the public right-of-way. Projects listed in the TSP on Greenhill Road (#10 and 54) and Fir Butte Rd (#118) will improve shoulder bikeways, and in combination with existing shoulder bikeways on Clear Lake Rd provide an on-street bicycle route alternative.

Fall Creek Most roads need better bike/ped facilities in this area, except for Pengra.

In the Fall Creek area, portions of Jasper-Lowell Rd have been identified for modernization, including paved shoulders for non-motorized use (projects 130 and 132). Projects in the Jasper-Lowell area include modernization of Parkway Rd to past Pengra Rd, to milepost 5.0. See the project list map for location.

Lowell Add sidewalks along major routes near schools; In Lowell, sidewalks were added in 2002 to Jasper-Lowell Rd. This provides connectivity with the existing sidewalk that accesses the school. Generally, the County requires sidewalks on its urban arterials and collectors and urban local roads. Improved rural collector roads typically receive paved shoulders for non-motorized travel. Staff considered rural bicycle-pedestrian needs by conducting field surveys of these facilities within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of local destinations, including schools, and made recommendations for improvements. The recommendations were added to the TSP 20-year project list.

Lowell Lowell needs planning assistance with street design and location

County has developed new design standards that apply to county roads within established urban growth boundaries. City standards apply to county roads classified as local roads within urban growth boundaries. As needed, cities may refer to Lane County design standards and/or publications such as AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets as a resource for developing design standards. Planning the location of roadways inside Lowell falls outside the scope of the Lane County TSP.

Appendix E.2. - Page 2

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Lowell Install stop signs and reduce speed limits; there are auto-

ped conflicts on Pengra and Jasper-Lowell This area was upgraded in 2002 with sidewalks, a school crosswalk, and connections to an existing off-road path to increase pedestrian safety. The intersection was studied and the two existing stop signs were found to be adequate. A speed zoning investigation was conducted and a state Speed Zone Order set new speed limits for this vicinity.

Marcola Supports multi-modes; does not support widening of Marcola Rd. but supports widening bike lanes

The County recently modernized Marcola Rd., including widening and the addition of adequate paved shoulders for bike use as well as striped bike lanes through the developed portion of Marcola proper. The section below Parsons Creek Rd was completed in 2002. Construction in Marcola is scheduled for 2003.

Junction City Bicyclists should face traffic Bicycles are legally classified as vehicles and therefore must follow the regulations that govern vehicular movement in Oregon. Marked bike lanes therefore follow the direction of traffic and bicyclists must go with the traffic flow. According to the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, there are greater safety concerns when bicyclists travel against the flow of traffic on a roadway, whether in a marked bike lane or on a paved shoulder.

Eugene Bicycles should be registered to pay for improvements. This is a regulatory policy decision that rests with the Board of County Commissioners. Eugene Bikes are not required to be insured; only motorized

vehicles are. Also, registrations would not cover costs of needed improvements. Instead, tax bike purchases like tubes and tires. Finally bicycles benefit everyone by reducing congestion, not using energy resources, and not using parking spaces. These benefits should be rewarded rather than taxed, although taxing at a slight rate would probably be hardly noticeable.

See response above.

County Road Improvements Cheshire Improve 6th St. in Cheshire 6th St in Cheshire does not appear on maps, and does not appear to be a county road. Cheshire Widen High Pass and Dorsey Ln. as well for bike/ped

facilities Dorsey Lane is identified in the TSP project list for rural modernization, including the addition of paved shoulders to accommodate non-motorized travel (project# 110). High Pass Rd at Cheshire may be considered if additional demand for it is heard from the public.

Cheshire Replace bridges with culverts Generally, the environmental impact of replacing bridges with culverts is high and not supported by the county as a general practice. Lane County bridges, in general, are in good condition with very few having sufficiency ratings below 50 (9 out of 402). With this in mind, developing a program to replace bridges that are structurally and functionally sufficient is hard to justify for the public expense.

Dunes City Clear Lake Rd. needs bike/walking lane The section from Hwy 101 to Jensen Lane was improved by the County in 2001. The remaining section from Jensen Lane to Canary Rd is programmed in the CIP and scheduled for improvements within the next couple of years.

Eugene Supports alternative modes; need more shoulders on high speed roads

See project list. A number of county roads are identified for modernization and shoulder improvements. Also see Lane County Road Design Standards, which provide for adequate shoulders on high-volume roadways when designing reconstruction and modernization projects..

Eugene Promote bike safety; wider shoulders on Lorane Highway Lorane Hwy was widened from Chambers St. to Spencer Creek in 1998. Variable width shoulders were provided from Chambers to McBeth. Full width shoulders were constructed from McBeth to Spencer Creek Rd. All other sections of Lorane Hwy have full width shoulders that meet standards.

Eugene From bicyclists standpoint, road surfaces are superb-smooth and well drained. Shoulders need to be wide enough and maintained. Lorane Hwy, Coburg Rd., Jasper Road, Perkins road need safety improvements.

See Lorane Hwy response above. Bike lanes were added on Coburg Road north of Eugene from Kinney Loop to Armitage Park as part of an urban standards project in 2000. Jasper Road is under the jurisdiction of the City of Springfield as well as the State Department of Transportation. The respective agencies must be contacted regarding these facilities. Farther out from the metro area, Jasper-Lowell Rd is a county facility, and there are two projects identified in the Lane County project list (in addition to improvements made in 2002) that will provide paved shoulders for bicycle use (projects# 130, 132). Perkins Rd from the Veneta city limits to Central Rd is identified for the

Appendix E.2. - Page 3

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response

addition of bike facilities in the TSP (project# 14). Eugene Improve bike shoulders, in particular: Territorial south of

Crow Rd., Crow Rd. is okay but could be a foot wider; Territorial Hwy is a state facility and out of Lane County's jurisdiction. However, staff has noted insufficient shoulders on Territorial and has included recommendations to the state for shoulder improvements in the TSP. Crow Rd currently has 3-4' shoulders and, as such, does not necessitate a capital improvement project to bring it up to standard.

Eugene Wants wider shoulders on Sheffler Rd. Sheffler Rd was noted as having inadequate width as part of the county's road needs assessment. However, the road was within 4 feet of having an adequate minimum width and was sufficient with regard to the other assessment criteria. Since the roadway is otherwise in good condition and its ADT of 950 is not considered high, the road was not recommended to the project list.

Fall Creek Relieve traffic on Jasper-Lowell Rd., which is too narrow; See previous staff responses related to Jasper-Lowell Rd. Jasper-Lowell Rd is identified for modernization in the Fall Creek area (projects# 130, 132). In terms of relieving traffic, Lane County supports providing bicycle facilities in these projects and encourages use of alternate modes of transportation along this route.

Fall Creek Pengra needs realignment; better directional signage at Pengra and Jasper-Lowell

Road improvements were constructed at this intersection in 2002. There are currently no plans or identified need for realignment of Pengra.

Vida Put in Bear Creek Bridge From 1988 to 1994, the County undertook an effort to study and build a new bridge crossing over the McKenzie River to serve the Goodpasture Road area. In January 1990, the Board of Commissioners selected Bear Creek as the preferred location for the new bridge. The subsequent land use plan amendment was appealed by the Pacific Rivers Council and the Oregon Guides and Packers to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the application back to the Board of County Commissioners who then elected to remove the project from further consideration.

Eugene From bicyclists standpoint, road surfaces are superb-smooth and well drained. Shoulders need to be wide enough and maintained. Lorane Hwy, Coburg Rd., Perkins road need safety improvements.

Comment addressed above.

Eugene Add shoulders to Dillard, Lorane, and routes to Veneta/Elmira

Dillard Rd is identified for modernization and shoulder improvements in the project list (project# 86). Lorane Hwy has been improved. Some routes in the Veneta/Elmira area have been included in the project list, namely Perkins, Central, and Suttle Rds (projects# 14, 120, 134).

Eugene As roads are improved/resurfaced, add 3-4' shoulders for bikes. Coburg Rd. for example needs wider shoulders.

See County Road Design Standards. The standards for the rural collector system provide for a minimum 4' shoulder on higher ADT roads. Only in lower ADT and mountainous terrain settings do the standards require lesser or in some cases no shoulders as the minimum. Coburg Rd from the City of Coburg to Eugene has shoulders and bike lanes that meet standards. See project# 82 in the TSP for the northern most section of Coburg Rd.

County Road Maintenance Eugene Stop roadside spraying. The County has an Integrated Vegetation Management Program (IVM) that uses a combination of manual,

mechanical, chemical, and biological methods to manage vegetation along roadsides. Specific comments can be forwarded to the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee (meets monthly) or the Board of County Commissioners.

Eugene Promote bike safety clean gravel from shoulders The County currently sweeps about 4-5 times a year. Increasing this frequency is a matter of allocation of resources. Please comment if you feel a higher frequency of sweepings is necessary.

Lorane Increase safety for bikes/peds on high speed roads; keep bike lanes swept

The county strives to provide adequate bike facilities (either marked lanes or paved shoulders) in its modernization projects on higher speed collector and arterial roads. Please identify specific roadways with perceived safety problems. The County currently sweeps about 4-5 times a year. Increasing this frequency is a matter of allocation of resources. Please comment if you feel a higher frequency of sweepings is necessary.

Appendix E.2. - Page 4

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Environment and Transportation Cheshire Develop an environmentally sound plan with public/private

input to plan for less gas and more people. The comment is taken to mean "reduce reliance on the automobile". This is a concept embraced in the state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). In developing the Lane County TSP, our goal is to be in compliance with the TPR.

Eugene Protect wetlands better during road projects. The TSP includes policy language stating that Lane County shall follow all state and federal environmental regulations, and this has historically been the county's practice. Each project brings its own set of circumstances regarding environmental impact. The goal stated in the TSP is to meet the requirements of Federal and State law through coordination and authorization by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Additional discussion regarding this topic is found in the TSP Transportation and Land Use chapter.

Eugene Concerned about road encroachment in wetland areas and too many roads.

See response above.

EWEB Evaluate hazardous materials transportation, especially on McKenzie Hwy. Focus is on shipment of persistent toxic materials that are hard to remove from water.

Movement of hazardous materials on state highways is regulated by the Oregon DOT. Interstate movements of hazardous materials is regulated by the US DOT. McKenzie Hwy is an ODOT facility.

State Highway Maintenance Elmira Need more signage advertising the coast in Eugene This comment relates more to economic development than the transportation system, and is beyond the

scope of the county's TSP. Florence Hwy 126 needs phones and turnouts Hwy 126 is a state facility and not under the jurisdiction of Lane County. ODOT should be contacted regarding

this issue. South of Florence

Need striping more often (it wears off); favors segregated bike/ped lanes

Separate multi-use paths are typically not provided with county road projects or as a stand-alone project, due to constitutional limits on the use of road funds.

Vida Hwy 126 needs emergency turnouts Hwy 126 is a state facility and not under Lane County jurisdiction. ODOT should be contacted regarding this issue.

State Highway Improvements Highway 36Cheshire Need shoulders on Hwy 36; widen and resurface Territorial;

better maintenance of road and ditches on Territorial While state highways are not under the planning jurisdiction of Lane County, staff has created a partial list of recommendations for state highway improvements based upon a bike-pedestrian needs assessment of facilities near local destinations (such as schools and stores) in rural unincorporated communities. Highway 36 has been recommended for shoulder improvements in Cheshire. Territorial Hwy in Crow and Lorane has been recommended for shoulder improvements. These recommendations were given to ODOT and are discussed in the TSP Needs Assessment chapter.

Cheshire Safer access for bikes/peds on Hwy 36, Territorial Rd.; put hwy fees back into this area

See above comment.

Junction City Need more shoulders and improved safety on Hwy 36 near Blachly, Territorial, Laurence. Repair chipped blacktop edges; replace missing crushed rock on shoulders. Territorial too narrow for modern vehicles.

See also above comment. Hwy 36 near Blachly has relatively low traffic volumes, and was therefore not on the list of recommended improvements that was given to ODOT. Territorial in Crow and Lorane has been recommended for shoulder improvements. Safety and operational concerns may also be addressed to ODOT

Highway 101 Dunes City Need wider shoulders for bikes/peds and emergencies

north and south of Florence; need more traffic lights on Hwy 101

As part of an assessment of bike-ped facilities serving local destinations in unincorporated communities, Hwy 101 at Glenada was recommended to ODOT for shoulder improvements. The assessment was limited to a few sections of state roads and mainly focused on county facilities. Safety and operational concerns may also be addressed to ODOT.

Appendix E.2. - Page 5

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response So. Of Florence No traffic lights at crosswalks on Hwy 101; increase visibility

of crosswalks with vivid colors; need protected turns; more emphasis on pedestrian facilities

See above comment.

Hwy 126 Florence-Eugene Highway Dunes City keep Hwy 126 2-lane as a scenic highway Hwy 126 is a state facility and not under Lane County jurisdiction. ODOT should be contacted regarding this

issue. Currently, Hwy 126 is not officially designated as a scenic route. Junction City Widen W. 11th to 4 lanes to Veneta W. 11th (Hwy 126W) to Veneta is a state facility and not under Lane County jurisdiction. ODOT should be

contacted regarding this issue. West 11th, the urban section of Hwy 126W, is identified for improvements in the TransPlan project list--the TSP for the Eugene-Springfield metro area.

Veneta Need a bypass between Eugene and Veneta; not Hwy 126 because of riparian areas; proposes different route

A bypass project is not included in the TSP. More support and analysis would be needed to warrant inclusion of this in the TSP.

Veneta W. 11th is insufficient for large traffic volumes. Hwy 126 should be in CIP. To avoid riparian areas, construct bypass.

Hwy 126 is a state facility and therefore not considered for inclusion in the county CIP. A bypass project is not included in the TSP. West 11th, the urban section of Hwy 126 W, is identified for improvements in the TransPlan project list--the TSP for the Eugene-Springfield metro area.

Eugene Promote bike safety; wider shoulders on W. 11th, Hwy 99/99W; clean gravel from shoulders

Hwy 99 is recommended to ODOT in the TSP for shoulder improvements in Goshen and Saginaw to allow better bicycle access to local destinations. West 11th is identified for urban standards (including bike facilities) from Greenhill to Danebo in TransPlan. This project has been incorporated into the TSP project list.

Eugene left turn from W.11th to Beltline is hazardous. W. 11th at Beltline is a state facility and not under Lane County jurisdiction. ODOT should be contacted regarding this issue.

Eugene add shoulders to routes to Veneta/Elmira Some routes in the Veneta/Elmira area have been included in the project list, namely Perkins, Central, and Suttle Rds. See project list for descriptions.

Territorial Highway Eugene Improve bike shoulders, in particular: Territorial south of

Crow Rd., Crow Rd. is okay but could be a foot wider; Comment addressed above.

Lorane Territorial needs shoulders; better brush removal Comment addressed above. Eugene From bicyclists standpoint, road surfaces are superb-

smooth and well drained. Shoulders need to be wide enough and maintained. Highway 99, Territorial, , Jasper Road need safety improvements.

Comment addressed above.

Highway 99 Goshen-CreswellEugene add shoulders to Hwy 99 (Goshen-Creswell) Comment addressed above. Hwy 126 McKenzie Highway Vida By-pass Hwy 126 E. with a major highway that avoids

riparian areas; Comment addressed above.

Eugene Add shoulders to McKenzie Hwy The TSP recommends to ODOT shoulder improvements along McKenzie Hwy. See ODOT STIP for identified projects along McKenzie Hwy. The county encourages the completion of such projects.

Other State Eugene Supports alternative modes; need more shoulders on high

speed roads Comment addressed above.

Florence I-5 is getting congested Multi-jurisdictional efforts are underway to promote high speed rail serving the north-south Willamette Valley corridor as an alternative to driving. Public support for high-speed rail improvements assists in addressing this issue. Future I-5 corridor planning will focus on the highway--TransPlan includes improvement projects and studies for I-5 in the Eugene-Springfield area.

Appendix E.2. - Page 6

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Transit (LTD Buses, Vans, Paratransit) Dorena "From a rural person"; need transit to Cottage Grove and

Creswell from Eugene LTD now offers bus service to Cottage Grove with stop in Creswell, terminating at Eugene Station and also servicing UO and LCC.

Eugene Transit to Cottage Grove and Florence; downtown trolleys; rail to Oakridge

LTD bus service is now offered to Cottage Grove, though not to Florence. Limited funding currently restricts the degree to which bus and new rail service can be provided throughout the county. Current Bus Rapid Transit initiatives will help in providing fluid transit service between major destinations in Eugene-Springfield.

Veneta Need more frequent buses for Veneta, Junction City, and service to Cottage Grove; supports bike paths and more transit

See above comment.

Vida Transit service needed for Cottage Grove See above comment. Junction City More LTD routes through Junction City and Harrisburg; See above comment. Lorane Commute service between Eugene, Creswell, Cottage

Grove, Florence, Albany, Corvallis See above comment.

Lorane Vanpool or minivan between Lorane and Eugene via Territorial, Lorane Highway, Bailey Hill Rd; emphasize alternative modes to private auto;

Amount of travel between Lorane and Eugene may not warrant operation of a minivan. Carpool matches may be sought via Commuter Solutions, the regional transportation demand management program at LTD. Commuter Solutions promotes use of alternative modes. Alternative modes are encouraged through the County's CIP with the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on applicable roads.

Lorane Bus service to Lorane that has bike racks See above comments. Marcola Need bus/van service to Marcola See above comments. Dunes City Expand FACT to Mapleton and Dunes City Refer request to City of Florence. So. Of Florence Help Florence form an independent transportation district This request should be directed to the City of Florence and the county Board of Commissioners. The

Commissioners and City will also receive copies of these comments as part of the TSP adoption process. So. Of Florence More transit to rural areas; need to expand transit in

general, including Deadwood, Canary, Ada, Dunes City; extend dial-a-ride service.

Funding for expanded transit is limited in part by the ability of communities to pay for the service. Lower demand in outlying areas also contributes to decisions not to serve these areas. The Public Transportation section of the TSP discusses this issue in more detail. Also contact LTD for additional information.

Florence West Lane needs bus service to/from Eugene; Transit between Florence, Mapleton, and Eugene is needed; more safe rural bus service

See above comments.

Florence Need transit between Florence and Eugene; interested in statewide rail system; increasing need for special transportation services for elderly

See above comments.

Eugene Extend bus to Dillard Rd; bike racks on buses; better transit

schedules See above comments.

Eugene Promote bike safety and transit; more bike racks and spaces on buses

See above comments.

Eugene Supports tram downtown See above comments. Lorane Transit to airport See above comments. Make mass transit available to rural areas; offer "maxi-taxi"

for a fee to rural areas; See above comments.

Appendix E.2. - Page 7

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Rail, Passenger and Freight Cheshire Promote multi modes including "super trains". The Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC has been nationally authorized under the High-

Speed Rail Investment Act. High-speed trains may be provided on this route as improvements are made to the tracks. Population growth and continued political support should improve and expand existing rail service in this direction.

Vida Supports monorail or trolley in Eugene-Springfield. These particular transportation options are not advocated in the TSP and are not currently included in the Eugene-Springfield TransPlan. Request should be directed at the respective cities.

Eugene Downtown trolleys; rail to Oakridge These particular transportation options are not advocated in the TSP and are not currently included in the Eugene-Springfield TransPlan. Requests should be directed at the respective cities.

Eugene Offer more modes of travel, like rail and transit. Passenger rail service has improved out of Eugene north to Portland and beyond. Lane County supports the mission of LTD and its provision of local transit service.

Lorane Commute service between Eugene, Creswell, Cottage Grove, Florence, Albany, Corvallis; light rail between Eugene, Springfield, Junction City, Veneta;

Commute service may be sought through LTD's Commuter Solutions program. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system being developed for Eugene-Springfield mimics a light-rail line at lower cost. No known plans to extend this service to JC or Veneta at this time.

Lorane Improve and expand freight rail to reduce truck traffic Freight truck traffic will only increase in the future, and diverting additional freight to rail is a cogent idea. Expanding rail to the dispersed settlements in Oregon would be highly capital intensive, and forces such as market demand would primarily drive these types of decisions.

Lorane Rapid transit to Portland The Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC has been nationally authorized under the High-Speed Rail Investment Act. High-speed trains may be provided on this route as improvements are made to the tracks. Population growth and continued political support should improve and expand existing rail service in this direction.

Marcola Supports train on I-5 corridor. The Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC has been nationally authorized under the High-Speed Rail Investment Act. High-speed trains may be provided on this route as improvements are made to the tracks. Population growth and continued political support should improve and expand existing rail service in this direction.

Vida Supports high speed rail to Seattle The Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC has been nationally authorized under the High-Speed Rail Investment Act. High-speed trains may be provided on this route as improvements are made to thetracks. Population growth and continued political support should improve and expand existing rail service in this direction.

Land Use and Transportation Dunes City Move commercial uses off of Hwy 101 to move in-town

traffic to smaller roads; beautify; require landscaped parking and no parking in front

See Dunes City Comprehensive Plan and development ordinance. Landscaping and parking requirement suggestions may be made to the City for their consideration in future ordinance changes.

Eugene Better/secure bike parking; land use planning to reduce distance between work/home/shopping

This issue is primarily urban in nature and should be directed to the City.

Eugene Supports land use planning that reduces VMT. See TransPlan, which includes strategies to minimize VMT in metro area. The County follows state land use requirements that limit development in rural areas. Concentrating development in well-designed cities should, in effect, reduce VMT per capita.

Transportation Demand Management Eugene Create incentives for transit use and disincentives for

private motor vehicle use, such as through taxes, education, employer incentives. Explore solar powered

The Transportation Planning Rule, which the county's TSP must comply, promotes alternatives to private motor vehicle use. Transit and transportation demand management (TDM) are promoted and supported in the county TSP. For example, TDM is promoted as a mitigation option as part of Traffic Impact Analysis

Appendix E.2. - Page 8

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response

mass transit. requirements related to proposed development. See Chapter 4.1 in the draft TSP. Lorane Provide employer financial incentives to encourage

alternatives to single occupancy vehicles and disincentives to single occupancy vehicle use.

LTD's commuter solutions program provides opportunities for employers to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use. See also above comments.

Miscellaneous Transportation Policy Issues Siuslaw RFPD Concerned about road grades in residential areas. Maximum grades on county roads are established in the draft road design standards that are being

considered for adoption as part of the TSP. Cheshire Require seatbelts on school buses This issue is beyond the scope of the County TSP. Junction City Raise age for drivers permits and licenses Junction City Use prisoners for highway maintenance Currently, the Lane County Sheriff's Office does operate work crews for some highway maintenance tasks.

For more information, please contact the Lane County Sheriff's Office. For State facilities, the TSP does not address this comment as it is outside the scope of the document.

Lorane Be aware of equestrian use of roads While no longer a prominent use of the roads, equestrian travel is known to exist in part of the county. Shoulder areas can usually accommodate this use. In addition, some state and county parks are developed with equestrian facilities.

Appendix F: Lane County General Plan Chart

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LANE COUNTY (includes all adopted gneral and detailed plans)

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PLAN

(includes all land within plan boundaries)

SMALL AREA PLANS Examples: - Willakenzie Plan - Whiteaker Plan

SPECIAL PURPOSE PLANS Examples: - 19th & Agate Special Area Study- Fairmount/U of O Special Area

Study

PLANS FOR SMALL INCORPORATED CITIES (areas within Urban Growth

Boundaries) - COTTAGE GROVE - CRESWELL - OAKRIDGE - WESTFIR - LOWELL - COBURG - JUNCTION CITY - VENETA - FLORENCE - DUNES CITY

SINGLE PURPOSE PLAN (may include metro, rural,

and small city areas)

Examples: - Transportation System Plan - Solid Waste Management Plan - Parks and Open Space Plan - Coastal Resources Management Plan

LANE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (includes all unincorporated lands beyond

Metropolitan Plan Boundary and small city Urban Growth Boundaries)

- Plan Policies - Coastal Plan Diagram - Inland Plan Diagram

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LANE COUNTY(includes all adopted general and detailed plans)

Appendix G: Needs Assessment Data The needs assessment data that follows consists of a point rating system assigned to collector and arterial segments found to be “deficient” in any one of the assessment criteria categories. Categories left blank indicate no or minimal deficiency. The data shown here will change over time due to normal wear or road improvement projects that may increase width, CBE, PCI, and safety. Operating conditions expressed in ADT and LOS data may change as the population grows and new development occurs. Each assessment criterion was weighted based upon its importance, and points were also allocated for each criterion not meeting a minimum reasonable threshold. Thus a road segment accumulated points based upon its “deficiencies” and based upon the importance of each deficiency criterion. For instance, Crash Rate, which is an indicator of roadway safety, is weighted as the most important criterion with eight points, while Pavement Condition was weighted the least important with one point. A road would receive the number of points indicated below if the associated deficiency threshold was met. The Assessment Criteria and associated thresholds and points are shown in the following table. Please see Chapter 6.3, Needs Assessment Methodology and Results, for more detailed explanation.

Criteria Deficiency Threshold Points Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Less than 50 points (see Chapter 6.3) 1 Crushed Base Eqivalent (CBE) 12” to less than 16” 2 Road Width Between 1’ and 4’ less than the standard 3 CBE Less than 12” 4 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Greater than 5,000 for urban roads and 10,000 for rural

roads, for 2020 projection 5

Level of Service (LOS) E or worse in 2017 6 Road Width Greater than or equal to 4’ less than the standard 7 Crash Rate Greater than 2.0 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled 8 Acronyms for Needs Assessment Data: BMP - Beginning Mile Point EMP - Ending Mile Point Terrain, L - Level Terrain, R - Rolling Terrain, M - Mountainous CIP - Capital Improvement Program PCI - Pavement Condition Index CBE - Crushed Base Equivalent ADT - Average Daily Traffic LOS - Level of Service

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

06TH AVE WEST 346500 0.520 0.850 L 4 4 18TH AVE EAST & DEAL 347500 0.000 0.300 L 7 7 18TH AVE WEST 347300 0.000 0.854 L 7 7 23RD ST 180900 0.000 0.252 L 7 7 30TH AVE 185000 0.100 1.500 R Bid List 5 5 31ST ST / 28TH ST 192500 0.542 0.905 L 4 7 11 ALVADORE RD 361500 0.000 3.587 L 7 7 ALVADORE RD 361500 3.587 6.100 L 2 7 9 APPLEGATE TRAIL 362200 0.000 2.584 R 7 7 ARROWHEAD ST 320100 0.000 0.230 L 7 7 ASPEN ST 167500 0.000 0.181 L 7 7 ASPEN ST 167500 0.337 0.441 L 7 7 AWBREY LN 344000 0.000 0.170 L 4 7 11 AWBREY LN 344000 0.170 1.340 L 4 7 11 BAILEY HILL RD 121500 3.113 4.616 R 3 3 BAILEY HILL RD 121500 2.498 3.010 R 6 6 BAILEY HILL RD 121500 3.010 3.113 R 3 3 BARSTOW AVE 320900 0.000 0.258 L 4 4 BEACON DR EAST 315000 0.000 0.740 L 1 7 8 BEACON DR EAST 315000 0.740 0.749 L 7 7 BEACON DR WEST 315600 1.000 1.172 L 7 7 BEACON DR WEST 315600 0.000 0.154 L Bid List 7 7 BEACON DR WEST 315600 0.154 1.000 L 7 7 BEAR CR RD 602800 0.000 2.160 R 7 7 BERNHARDT CR RD 503400 0.000 0.063 M 4 3 7 BERNHARDT CR RD 503400 0.063 6.985 M 4 3 7 BERNHARDT CR RD 503400 6.985 7.058 M 1 4 3 8 BIG FALL CR RD 624000 7.550 9.110 M 4 4 BIG FALL CR RD 624000 0.000 7.550 M 7 7 BLACKFOOT AVE 323000 0.300 0.806 L 2 2 BLUE RIVER DR 110500 0.000 1.555 R 7 7 BODENHAMER RD 427200 0.000 1.062 L 7 7 BODENHAMER RD 427200 1.062 1.345 L 7 7 BOLTON HILL RD 406200 0.000 1.171 R 2 7 9 BOLTON HILL RD 406200 1.171 3.254 R 4 4 BRICE CR RD 247000 0.000 2.150 M 4 3 7 BRICE CR RD 247000 3.340 8.122 M Bid List 4 4

Needs Assessment Data

G-2

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

BRIDGE ST 106000 0.006 0.190 L 4 7 11 BRIDGE ST 106000 0.190 0.295 L 7 7 BRIGGS HILL RD 409000 0.000 2.500 R 4 3 7 BRIGGS HILL RD 409000 2.500 4.401 R 2 7 9 CALLA ST 329600 0.000 0.173 L 7 7 CAMAS SWALE RD 213000 0.743 7.010 R 7 7 CAMAS SWALE RD 213000 0.550 0.743 R 7 7 CANARY RD 532000 0.000 0.686 R 7 7 CENTRAL RD 428800 0.000 1.920 L 2 7 9 CENTRAL RD 428800 1.920 4.990 R 2 7 9 CLEAR LAKE RD 534000 0.142 2.290 R Bid List 2 7 9 CLEAR LAKE RD 534000 2.290 4.233 R Bid List 7 7 CLOVERDALE RD 601000 0.000 3.276 L 7 7 COBURG RD 150000 7.416 8.784 L 7 7 COBURG RD 150000 8.784 12.883 L 7 7 COBURG RD NO 161000 0.000 0.218 L 7 7 COBURG RD NO 161000 0.218 1.820 L 7 7 COBURG RD NO 161000 1.820 4.115 L 7 7 COTTAGE GROVE RES RD 273000 0.000 4.583 R 3 3 CREST DR 125200 0.000 0.360 R 7 7 CREST DR 125200 0.360 0.623 R 7 7 CREST DR 125200 0.623 0.873 R 7 7 CROCKER RD 319900 0.000 0.580 L 2 3 5 CURRIN CONN 252400 0.000 0.071 L 7 7 DANSTROM RD 602000 0.000 0.135 L 4 7 11 DEADWOOD CR RD 514000 8.968 9.989 M 4 3 7 DEADWOOD CR RD 514000 9.989 11.723 M 4 7 11 DEADWOOD CR RD 514000 5.410 7.180 M 4 4 DEERHORN RD 105800 0.000 3.680 M 2 2 DEERHORN RD 105800 3.680 7.206 M 4 3 7 DELTA HWY SO 174000 0.000 1.804 L Bid List 5 5 DELTA HWY SO NE RAMP 174005 0.000 0.195 L 5 5 DELTA HWY SO SW RAMP 174003 0.000 0.245 L 7 5 12 DELTA RD 861000 0.130 Bridge L Bid List 0 DEMMING RD 400800 0.000 1.000 R 4 7 11 DEMMING RD 400800 1.000 1.120 R 4 7 11 DEXTER RD 611400 0.000 1.500 L 7 7

Needs Assessment Data

G-3

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

DIBBLEE LN 325900 0.000 0.210 L 4 7 11 DILLARD RD 187000 0.000 3.850 R 7 7 DIVISION AVE 130800 0.000 1.040 L Bid List 0 DORSEY LN 361200 0.000 1.542 L 7 7 EAST MAPLETON RD 503000 0.317 1.000 M 2 2 EAST MAPLETON RD 503000 1.000 3.950 M 4 4 EDENVALE RD 606800 0.000 1.000 R 4 7 11 EDENVALE RD 606800 2.000 3.273 L 4 7 11 EDENVALE RD 606800 1.000 2.000 R 4 7 11 ELLMAKER RD 429800 0.000 1.114 L 2 7 9 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 2.960 4.883 L 4 7 11 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 1.050 2.000 R 7 7 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 0.000 0.500 L 4 4 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 0.500 1.050 L 4 4 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 2.000 2.960 R 2 7 9 FERGUSON RD 350800 0.000 3.420 L 7 7 FERGUSON RD 350800 6.320 8.150 L 4 7 11 FERGUSON RD 350800 8.150 9.260 L 4 7 11 FERGUSON RD 350800 9.260 10.700 R 4 7 11 FIR BUTTE RD 427300 0.000 2.706 R 7 7 FISHER RD 428600 1.120 1.200 R 7 7 FLECK RD 407400 0.000 2.512 L 2 7 9 FRANKLIN BLVD EAST 182500 0.000 1.121 L 7 5 12 FRANKLIN RD 383600 0.000 2.522 R 7 7 GAME FARM RD NO 171000 0.610 1.690 L Bid List 7 5 12 GAME FARM RD SO 152800 0.000 0.910 L 7 5 8 20 GAROUTTE RD 255500 0.000 2.507 R 2 3 5 GOLDSON RD 363600 0.000 0.500 R 3 3 GOLDSON RD 363600 0.500 1.556 R 3 3 GONYEA RD 185400 0.000 0.595 L 6 6 GOWDYVILLE RD 264500 0.183 1.890 R 7 7 GOWDYVILLE RD 264500 0.000 0.183 R 7 7 GREEN HILL RD 327000 5.072 5.815 L 7 7 GREEN HILL RD 427000 2.818 3.820 L 7 7 GREEN HILL RD 427000 3.820 5.072 L 7 7 GREEN HILL RD 427000 1.869 2.818 L 7 7 GROVE ST 133100 0.164 0.528 L 2 2

Needs Assessment Data

G-4

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

HALL RD 362500 0.000 1.500 L 2 7 9 HALL RD 362500 1.990 3.820 R 2 2 HALL RD 362500 1.500 1.990 R 2 2 HALL RD 362500 4.560 5.880 R 4 7 11 HALL RD 362500 5.880 6.800 R 4 7 11 HALL RD 362500 6.800 7.158 R 4 3 7 HAMM RD 213200 4.360 5.607 M 2 2 HARVEY RD 211400 0.000 0.260 L 4 7 11 HARVEY RD 211400 0.260 0.861 L 4 7 11 HARVEY RD 211400 0.861 1.377 L 7 7 HAYDEN BR RD 181000 0.000 1.452 L 7 7 HAYDEN BR WAY 163500 0.142 0.612 L 5 5 HECETA BEACH RD 525000 0.000 1.885 R 2 3 5 HENDERSON AVE NO 181500 0.000 0.391 L 4 7 11 HIGH PASS RD 345500 0.000 1.514 L 7 7 HIGH PASS RD 345500 1.514 4.080 L 7 7 HIGH PASS RD 345500 4.080 7.530 R 7 7 HIGH PASS RD 345500 7.530 11.000 M 4 3 7 HIGH PASS RD 345500 11.000 12.840 M 4 7 11 HIGH PASS RD 345500 16.540 17.224 M 4 3 7 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 615400 0.000 0.111 R 7 8 15 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 615400 0.111 0.947 R 7 7 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 615400 2.246 6.619 R 7 7 HILL RD 195600 0.000 4.572 R 7 7 HOLDEN CR LN 108000 0.000 0.157 L 2 7 9 HORN LN 136000 0.000 0.928 L 2 7 9 HOWARD AVE 134200 0.000 0.956 L 2 3 5 HOWE LN 217400 0.000 1.230 R 3 3 HUNSAKER LN-BEAVER ST 332000 0.000 0.060 L 1 5 6 HUNSAKER LN-BEAVER ST 332000 0.060 1.141 L 7 5 12 HUSTON RD SO 430800 0.524 1.070 L 4 7 11 HUSTON RD SO 430800 0.272 0.524 L 4 7 11 HYACINTH ST 329800 0.530 0.664 L 7 7 INDIAN CR RD 513000 5.500 8.771 M 2 2 IRVING RD 326800 1.380 1.500 L 7 5 12 IRVING RD 326800 1.230 1.360 L 5 5 IRVINGTON DR 319500 0.000 1.412 L Bid List 1 2 7 5 15

Needs Assessment Data

G-5

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

IRVINGTON DR 319500 1.430 1.479 L Bid List 7 5 12

JASPER RD EXTENSION 199400 L Bid List 0 JASPER RD EXTENSION 199400 L Bid List 0 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 3.874 5.000 R 1 7 8 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 5.000 6.118 R 7 7 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 6.118 8.574 R 7 7 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 9.606 10.399 R 3 3 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 1.200 1.600 R 4 4 JEANS RD 403600 1.185 3.000 L 7 7 KALMIA ST 329400 0.000 0.070 L 7 7 KING RD EAST 111800 0.000 1.038 M 2 2 KING RD EAST 111800 3.168 4.012 M 2 2 KNIGHT RD 433000 0.000 1.440 R 3 3 LAKE DR 135200 0.130 0.430 L 4 3 7 LAKE DR 135200 0.000 0.130 L 7 7 LATHAM RD 269900 0.000 0.965 L 7 7 LAURA ST 193900 0.000 0.273 L 7 7 LINGO LN 348000 0.000 1.896 L Bid List 2 3 5 LITTLE FALL CR RD 623000 0.000 1.500 M 2 2 LITTLE FALL CR RD 623000 1.500 3.678 M 2 2 LOST CR RD 612000 0.000 0.669 R 3 3 LOST CR RD 612000 1.876 4.035 R 3 3 LYNX HOLLOW RD 219200 0.000 2.790 R 3 3 MAPLE CR RD 532600 0.000 0.592 M 3 3 MARCOLA RD 190000 5.818 11.550 L Bid List 7 7 MARCOLA RD 190000 11.550 16.080 R Bid List 7 7 MARCOLA RD 190000 5.818 11.550 L Bid List 7 7 MCBETH RD 127300 0.000 3.604 R 7 7 MCFARLAND RD 613000 0.000 1.582 R 2 2 MCKENZIE VIEW DR 159500 0.000 3.190 R 7 7 MCKENZIE VIEW DR 159500 3.190 6.099 R 7 7 MEADOWVIEW RD EAST 344600 0.000 1.162 L 4 7 11 MEADOWVIEW RD WEST 344300 0.000 1.446 L 7 7 MEADOWVIEW RD WEST 344300 1.446 2.952 L 7 7 MERCER LAKE RD 524000 0.000 1.080 M 4 4 MILL RD 610200 0.000 0.249 L Bid List 2 2 MILLIRON RD EAST 345000 0.000 0.402 L Bid List 4 3 8 15

Needs Assessment Data

G-6

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

MOSBY CR RD 250000 1.204 1.597 L 7 7 MOSBY CR RD 250000 1.610 1.632 L 7 7 MUNSEL LAKE RD 526000 0.000 0.382 L 2 7 9 MUNSEL LAKE RD 526000 0.382 0.500 L 2 7 9 MUNSEL LAKE RD 526000 0.774 2.090 R 3 3 NELSON MTN RD 467000 9.890 11.109 M Bid List 0 NELSON MTN RD 367000 0.000 2.860 M 7 7 NELSON MTN RD 467000 4.200 9.890 M 4 7 11 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 17.412 17.883 M 4 3 7 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 0.000 0.849 L 7 7 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 5.700 11.450 M 2 2 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 11.450 12.500 M 4 4 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 12.500 13.805 M 4 4 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 13.805 17.412 M 4 4 NO RIVER RD 221000 0.000 0.433 L 7 7 NORATON RD 348500 1.856 2.718 L 2 2 NORTH DELTA HWY 173000 0.000 0.201 L Bid List 1 5 6 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 121000 0.170 1.738 L 5 5 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 121000 0.104 0.170 L 5 5 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 121000 2.568 3.220 L 5 5 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 321000 3.220 3.350 L 3 3 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 321000 3.350 4.749 L 5 5 OAKLEA DR 351200 0.000 1.512 L 7 7 OAKLEA DR 351200 1.512 2.534 L 7 7 PARK AVE 138000 0.000 0.786 L 2 7 9 PEARL ST 163900 0.561 0.635 L Bid List 7 5 12 PEARL ST 163900 0.540 0.561 L 7 7 PERKINS RD 406600 1.110 2.822 L 2 7 9 PERKINS RD 406600 0.420 0.443 L 2 7 9 PERKINS RD 406600 0.443 1.110 L 2 7 9 PINE GROVE RD 425400 0.000 1.000 R 7 7 PIONEER PKWY EAST 194600 1.700 1.781 L Bid List 3 5 8 16 PLACE RD 622500 0.942 2.500 R 7 7 PLACE RD 622500 2.500 4.490 R 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347000 1.939 2.211 L Bid List 7 5 8 20 PRAIRIE RD 347000 0.690 1.640 L Bid List 5 6 11 PRAIRIE RD 147000 0.118 0.690 L 5 6 11

Needs Assessment Data

G-7

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

PRAIRIE RD 347080 8.050 9.250 L 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347000 1.640 1.939 L Bid List 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347030 2.221 3.116 L 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347030 3.116 5.500 L 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347030 5.500 7.286 L 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347030 7.286 7.850 L 7 7 RATTLESNAKE RD 610400 2.250 4.474 R 3 3 RHODODENDRON DR 528000 3.440 5.112 R 4 3 7 RICHARDSON RD 501800 0.000 0.100 M 4 3 7 RIDGEWAY RD 605800 0.000 1.000 R 4 7 11 RIDGEWAY RD 605800 1.500 2.540 L 2 3 5 RIVER LP #1 325800 0.000 0.244 L 4 7 11 RIVER LP #2 318500 0.000 0.990 L 7 5 12 RIVER RD 310000 7.340 7.366 L Bid List 5 5 RIVER RD 310000 7.366 7.747 L Bid List 5 5 RODGERS RD 601800 0.678 1.200 L 7 7 ROW RIVER RD 240000 4.840 6.000 R 2 2 ROW RIVER RD 240000 1.042 1.795 L 3 5 8 ROW RIVER RD 240000 1.795 1.900 L 3 3 ROW RIVER RD 240000 6.000 11.000 R 3 3 ROW RIVER RD 240000 16.230 16.310 R 7 7 ROW RIVER RD 240000 16.310 16.597 R 7 7 ROW RIVER RD 240000 16.597 19.778 R 4 7 11 ROYAL AVE 145500 2.267 2.930 L Bid List 7 5 8 20 ROYAL AVE 145500 2.930 3.267 L Bid List 3 5 8 SAGINAW RD EAST 220200 0.000 0.622 L 7 7 SCENIC DR 310800 0.000 0.765 R 2 7 9 SEARS RD 241000 0.000 0.640 L 7 7 SEARS RD 241000 0.640 2.950 L 4 7 11 SEARS RD 241000 3.350 9.610 L 7 7 SEAVEY LP RD 188100 0.000 3.791 L 7 7 SEAVEY WAY 189300 0.222 Bridge L Bid List 0 SHARPS CR RD 246000 9.650 10.160 M 2 3 5 SHEFFLER RD 401600 0.000 1.870 R 7 7 SHOESTRING RD 275500 0.000 3.770 M 4 4 SILTCOOS STA RD 533400 0.000 1.000 M 2 2 SILTCOOS STA RD 533400 1.850 4.841 M 4 4

Needs Assessment Data

G-8

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

SILVER LN 131400 0.458 0.511 L 5 5 SOUTH CANARY RD 533000 0.000 2.613 M 2 2 SPENCER CR RD 413200 0.500 3.285 R 7 7 SPRING CR DR 317500 0.000 0.527 L 2 7 9 STAGECOACH RD 502000 9.704 11.488 M Bid List 2 2 STAGECOACH RD 502000 0.000 2.500 M Bid List 4 3 7 STAGECOACH RD 502000 2.500 4.200 M Bid List 4 7 11 STAGECOACH RD 502000 4.200 9.704 M Bid List 2 7 9 SUNDERMAN RD 194800 0.000 2.728 L 3 3 SUTTLE RD 441000 0.000 3.802 L 7 7 SUTTON LAKE RD 523000 0.000 0.460 R 2 7 9 SUTTON LAKE RD 523000 0.460 2.688 R 2 7 9 TEN MILE RD 521000 0.000 2.012 M 4 7 11 TEN MILE RD 521000 2.143 8.340 M 4 7 11 THOMPSON CR RD 511000 4.300 4.820 M 4 3 7 THOMPSON CR RD 511000 0.000 0.050 M 4 4 THOMPSON CR RD 511000 0.050 2.988 M 4 7 11 THORNTON RD SO 252000 0.150 0.284 L 7 7 THURSTON RD 103500 1.082 1.330 L 4 4 UPPER NO FORK RD 508400 0.000 3.044 M 2 2 VAUGHN RD 433500 6.700 9.906 R 7 7 WARTHEN RD 402400 1.180 4.008 R 7 7 WARTHEN RD 402400 0.000 1.180 L 7 7 WENDLING RD 197500 0.000 1.600 R 3 3 WEST BOUNDARY RD 627000 1.680 15.842 M Bid List 4 4 WEST SHEFFLER RD 401800 0.000 2.352 R 2 2 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 612800 2.000 3.050 R 7 7 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 612800 3.569 5.192 M 3 3 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 612800 5.192 6.065 M 3 3 WILKES DR 321400 0.000 0.290 L 5 5 WILKES DR 321400 0.790 0.932 L 4 7 11 WILKES DR 321400 0.290 0.790 L 2 2 WILLAG RD NEE RAMP #1 166001 0.000 0.285 L Bid List 7 5 12 WINBERRY CR RD 624500 4.420 5.674 M 4 4

Needs Assessment Data

G-9

Appendix H: Finding of Compliance with State Land Use

Goals and County Comprehensive Plan

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE No. PA 1202 The Lane County Board of Commissioners (“Board”) finds as follows: 1. The Ordinance to which these findings are attached effects an update to the Lane County Transportation

System Plan (TSP), which is a component of the Lane County Comprehensive Plan including the Rural Comprehensive Plan (“RCP”). In addition to adopting the updated TSP, the Board is amending RCP General Plan Goal 12, Policy 4 to incorporate the updated TSP into the County’s General Plan Policies. These changes will be referred to as the TSP update throughout these findings.

2. Pursuant to Lane Code (LC) 12.050(1) and LC 16.400(6)(h)(i) amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and

Rural Comprehensive Plan shall be by ordinance. Adopting Ordinance No. PA 1202 accomplishes these requirements.

3. LC 12.050(2) provides review criteria to adopt the updated TSP and the amendment to General Plan Policy

12 into the County Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are as follows:

LC 12.050 (2) The Board may amend or supplement the comprehensive plan upon a finding of:

(a) an error in the plan; or (b) changed circumstances affecting or pertaining to the plan; or (c) a change in public policy; or (d) a change in public need based on a reevaluation of factors affecting the plan;

provided, the amendment or supplement does not impair the purpose of the plan as established by LC 12.005 above.

LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii)(bb) provides similar review criteria for amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan, as follows:

LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii) The Board may amend or supplement the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon making the following findings: ** (bb) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan amendment or component is:

(i-i) necessary to correct an identified error in the application of the Plan; OR (ii-ii) necessary to fulfill an identified public or community need for the intended result of the component or amendment; OR (iii-iii) necessary to comply with the mandate of local, state, or federal policy or law; OR (iv-iv) necessary to provide for the implementation of adopted Plan policy or elements; OR (v-v) otherwise deemed by the Board, for reasons briefly set forth in its decision, to be desirable, appropriate or proper.

With regard to these review criteria the Board finds as follows: The Transportation Element of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 1980. The TSP update is necessary: a. to address changed circumstances related to the use and development of the transportation network in

Lane County, including population growth and new development; b. to incorporate nationally accepted engineering practices which have evolved and changed since 1980

and which pertain to transportation system planning and development, into local requirements;

H-1 Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan

Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

c. to address a change in public need as evidenced in part by the needs assessment which is a part of the TSP document and also as a result of changed circumstances as described in a. above; and

d. to comply with the mandate of new statewide planning goal requirements, specifically the Transportation Planning Rule.

Based upon all of the above findings, the Board concludes that the proposed update is consistent with the review criteria listed above.

4. LC 16.400(6)(h)(ii) requires the amendment be concurrent with an amendment to LC 16.400(4), which lists

the adopting ordinance numbers. The adopted changes include an amendment to LC 16.400(4), so this requirement has been met.

5. In addition to the requirements in LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii)(bb) listed above, additional findings under LC

16.400(6)(h)(iii)(aa) must be made to adopt the proposed TSP update. Specifically, the Board may amend the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon making certain additional findings, as follows:

LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii) The Board may amend or supplement the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon making the following findings: (aa) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan component or amendment meets all applicable requirements of local and state law, including Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon Administrative Rules.

The amendment meets applicable requirements of local and state law in that it is being processed as a Plan

Amendment pursuant to LC Chapter 14 requirements, and is subject to the approval criteria of LC Chapter 16, both of which chapters were previously found to be in compliance with state law. Findings of consistency with the approval criteria in LC 16 are contained herein, including findings of consistency with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and applicable Oregon Administrative Rules, as follows:

Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.

Extensive public involvement was afforded pursuant to the Public Involvement Plan that is included in the TSP as Appendix E.1. Specifically: • Ten public information meetings were held around the County, in May and June, 1995 prior to drafting

of the updated TSP. • In September 2002, peer review was sought of the proposed road design standards, traffic impact

analysis requirements, and level of performance requirements. Seventy-eight private and public engineers and land use planners were contacted as part of that process. Follow-up telephone calls were also made to each addressee. Comments received were considered and used to make changes to applicable sections of the TSP document.

• The draft TSP document was placed in each of Lane County’s nine libraries, and published on the internet, in January 2003.

• Four public informational meetings were held around the County in February, 2003, after the draft was available for public review.

• The public information meetings and announcements about availability of the draft were publicized on two occasions, one to two weeks prior to the meetings (depending on individual newspaper schedules), via advertisements in all of the following newspapers: The Eugene-Register Guard, Springfield News, Cottage Grove Sentinel, Siuslaw News, River Reflections, and West Lane News. In addition, notice postcards were mailed to over 550 individuals and agencies including schools, emergency response agencies, utility service providers, Port of Siuslaw, other service districts, planning offices and city council members of all Lane County incorporated communities, neighborhood organizations, watershed

H-2

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

councils, public interest groups, state offices with responsibilities for transportation planning and services, private engineering, planning, and legal firms, and other interested individuals.

• A joint public hearing before the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee and Planning Commission was held on September 9, 2003. Legal notices for the hearing were published in the Eugene-Register-Guard and Springfield News, on August 19 and 20, respectively. Public hearing notice postcards were also mailed to the same 550+ parties described in the previous paragraph, and display advertisements were placed in the same six newspapers.

• A “Ballot Measure 56” notice pursuant to ORS 215.503 was mailed to more than 37,000 owners of property located within Lane County and outside the Eugene-Springfield urban growth boundary and outside the city limits of other incorporated communities.

• A second hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was held in early 2004. Prior to the hearing, legal notices were published in the Eugene Register-Guard and the Springfield News. In addition, notification postcards were mailed to the same 550+ parties described above, as well as to the parties who testified in writing or verbally at the Roads Advisory Committee/Planning Commission joint hearing.

The TSP is a plan amendment that is subject to the public notification and hearing processes and provisions of LC Chapter 14 and 16. As described above, the public involvement requirements of these chapters have been met, and exceeded, and opportunity for public involvement was afforded at all phases of the process. The amendment is therefore consistent with statewide planning Goal 1.

Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.

The Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) as complying with state planning goals. LC 16.400, adopted and also acknowledged by LCDC specifies the means by which the RCP may be amended. The TSP update follows the procedures outlined in Lane Code and these findings provide an adequate factual basis for action. The amendment therefore conforms to the established land use planning process and framework consistent with Goal 2.

Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.

As addressed under Goal 12 below and incorporated here by reference, certain transportation facilities and uses are allowed on agricultural land either outright or with a special use permit. TSP policy 20-a is being adopted and related land use regulations are being amended to provide for these uses, consistent with statewide planning Goal 3. Adoption of the TSP update will not change any agricultural land use designations. Based upon these findings the amendment is consistent with Goal 3.

Goal 4 - Forest Lands: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to

protect the state’s forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.

As addressed under Goal 12 below and incorporated here by reference, certain transportation facilities and uses are allowed on forest lands either outright or with a special use permit. TSP policy 20-a is being adopted and related land use regulations are being amended to provide for these uses, consistent with statewide planning Goal 4. Adoption of the TSP update will not change any forest land designations. Based upon these findings the amendment is consistent with Goal 4.

H-3

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.

Changes to Lane Code associated with the TSP update include an exemption for public road projects within County-regulated riparian areas from Riparian Modification Permit requirements if they comply with Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for aquatic species. Public road projects are required to comply with provisions under the ESA for aquatic species that exceed the Goal 5 and associated Lane Code requirements for riparian protection. As such, by complying with the ESA, such public road projects also will adequately address riparian protections otherwise required by regulations applicable to riparian area development.

The treatment of other resources regulated under Goal 5 will not change as a result of the TSP update, and therefore the goal is otherwise not relevant to this amendment. Based upon these findings, the TSP update is consistent with Goal 5.

Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.

The TSP update does not include any changes to the treatment of the resources protected under this goal, so the goal is not relevant to this amendment.

Goal 7 - Areas Subject To Natural Disasters And Hazards: To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.

The TSP update does not include any changes relevant to management of areas subject to natural disasters and hazards so the goal is not relevant to this amendment.

Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.

The TSP update does not include any changes related to management of recreational resources, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.

While the TSP update will provide for the continued orderly development of the County road network which is vital to economic development activity, the above statewide planning goal requirement is not directly relevant to the amendment. Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to housing, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.

Transportation facilities are identified as public facilities under this goal. OAR 660-011-0035(1) requires,

H-4 Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan

Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for those sewer, water, and transportation public facility projects identified in the facility plan . . .

The TSP update includes a project list and cost estimates for each anticipated County Road improvement project. Other public facility projects, for example water, sewer and public transit improvements, are identified in other long range planning documents adopted separately from the TSP.

Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.

OAR 660-012 is the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) that implements statewide planning Goal 12. Subsection numbers below are those found within OAR 660-012 (i.e., “-0005” refers to OAR 660-012-0005). The Board finds the TSP update complies with the TPR requirements based upon the following findings:

-0005 provides certain definitions that were adopted, as applicable to Lane County, as part of the TSP update. -0010 provides for a distinction between transportation system planning and project development, noting that the latter implements the former by determining the precise location, alignment, and preliminary design of improvements included in the TSP. This section does not direct local governments to adopt any provisions to comply with the TPR but it is noted that the County’s TSP provides for transportation system planning while Lane Code and Lane Manual provide for project development. -0015 requires County TSPs to be consistent with the state TSP. The County has consulted and coordinated with Oregon Department of Transportation to provide for coordination and mutual TSP consistency. This section of the TPR also requires that the County TSP be coordinated with federal agencies, local governments, special districts, and private providers of transportation services. The County TSP effort involved coordination with all service districts and providers of transportation services throughout Lane County, and with local governments. -0020 requires TSPs for local jurisdictions such as Lane County to have certain elements, including: • a determination of needs; • road system plan including functional classes consistent with state and regional TSPs; • road standards; • public transit; bicycle and pedestrian; air, rail, water, and pipeline elements; and • an inventory of the road system and other transportation system elements.

The TSP update includes all the required elements listed above. While a financing element is not required for areas outside urban growth boundaries, the TSP update also includes a financing element.

-0025 requires findings of compliance with statewide planning goals and acknowledged comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations. These findings demonstrate consistency with this requirement.

-0045 requires certain regulations and ordinances to be adopted. This includes land use regulations specifying transportation uses and services allowed in each land use zone; other regulations specifying access control measures and acceptable road performance levels; other transportation system protection measures consistent with road functional classes and rural land density limitations; measures to protect public use airports; a process for coordinated review of land use decisions; a process to apply development proposal conditions to minimize impacts and protect transportation facilities; regulations to require notice to public agencies; and regulations to assure that land use designations, densities, and design standards are consistent with functions, capacities and levels of service of facilities. Regulations to provide for safe,

H-5

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

convenient, and reasonably direct access for bicycles and pedestrians are also required. Finally, this section of the TPR requires that standards for local streets be adopted that minimize pavement width and total right-of-way consistent with the operational needs of the facility.

Certain of the above requirements have already been in place in Lane County’s land use regulations,

including provisions to protect airports, and land use review processes providing for coordination, notice to agencies, and for assigning conditions to development proposals. Under separate ordinance, changes to the regulations in Lane Code Chapters 10, 13, 15, and 16 are being adopted to implement the TSP in compliance with all the other above noted requirements, including new access control measures, updated regulations to provide for safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access, road performance and traffic impact analysis requirements to protect transportation facilities, and new road design standards that minimize pavement width consistent with operation needs of road facilities. The TSP also includes related, overarching goals and policies. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the requirements of -0045.

-0050 includes provisions for transportation project development, and specifies requirements for public involvement and compliance with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations when a land use decision is involved in project development. The updated TSP, and Lane Code land use regulations being adopted as part of this amendment, provide for transportation uses that may be allowed in rural areas without a goal exception. Also, pre-existing requirements provide for the necessary public process if a transportation facility or use requires a land use decision or an amendment to the TSP.

-0060(1) and (2) provide that plan and land use regulation amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall ensure that land uses allowed by the amendment are consistent with road function, capacity, level of service, and other performance standards. The TPR also specifies under what conditions a plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility. TSP Policy 20-d and related land use regulations implement this requirement with regard to plan amendments. -0060(3) requires coordination with other agencies regarding determinations under -0060(1) and (2). Lane County has long had such a coordination process in place, routinely sending proposed plan and land use regulation amendment referrals to all affected agencies. The updated TSP also includes Goal 21, and policies 21-a through 21-c, which provide for coordinated land use review when making decisions about transportation facilities. -0060(4) provides that the presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be the basis for an exception to allow certain development on rural lands. This requirement was incorporated into the TSP as policy 20-e. -0065 provides for transportation facilities, services, and improvements which may be permitted either outright or as special uses on rural lands consistent with Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 without a goal exception. In addition, this section of the TPR references provisions in ORS 215.213 applicable to agricultural lands in Lane County, and references Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660, Division 6 applicable to forest lands in Lane County. These ORS and OAR sections referenced by the TPR provide for transportation facilities and uses that may be permitted outright or as special uses in agricultural zones and forest zones. All of these provisions were addressed by TSP policy 20-a and by the adoption of corresponding land use regulation amendments that specify the facilities, services and improvements that may be permitted on rural lands, including agricultural and forest zones. As described above, and in combination with amendments being made to Lane County land use regulations, the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable requirements of the TPR.

Goal 13 - Energy: To conserve energy.

H-6

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to energy, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.

Goal 12, the Transportation Planning Rule, includes provisions related to transportation uses allowed on rural lands to help maintain the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. As noted above under findings related to Goal 12, incorporated here by reference, this proposal complies with those provisions. Besides complying with these related sections in the TPR, the TSP update will not change any County requirements related to urbanization, so the amendment is consistent with Goal 14.

Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.

The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to the Willamette River Greenway, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources: To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and to protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon’s estuaries.

The land use regulation amendments associated with the TSP update provide for consistency with this goal by restricting allowed transportation facilities, services, and improvements within estuarine zones to operations, maintenance, repair, preservation, and rehabilitation. Furthermore, such uses are only allowed provided there is no associated dredging or excavation. As such this proposal is consistent with Goal 16.

Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands: To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-depending uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and to reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting form the use and enjoyment of Oregon’s coastal shorelands.

Goal 17 is implemented under Lane County’s coastal shorelands combining zone regulations. The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to these requirements, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes: To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and to reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with these areas.

Goal 18 is implemented under Lane County’s land use combining zone regulations. The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to these requirements, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 19 - Ocean Resources: To conserve the long-term values, benefits, and natural resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf. All local, state, and federal plans, policies,

H-7

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

projects, and activities which affect the territorial sea shall be developed, managed and conducted to maintain, and where appropriate, enhance and restore, the long-term benefits derived from the nearshore oceanic resources of Oregon. Since renewable ocean resources and uses, such as food production, water quality, navigation, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment, will provide greater long-term benefits than will nonrenewable resources, such plans and activities shall give clear priority to the proper management and protection of renewable resources.

The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to ocean resources, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

6. Pursuant to LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii)(aa) and OAR 660-012-0025(2) above, findings of consistency with

applicable local policies, including the applicable Rural Comprehensive Plan policies are required to adopt this amendment. Findings of consistency with applicable policies of the Rural Comprehensive Plan follow.

Goal 1: Citizen Involvement 1. . . . assure availability of planning information . . . 2. . . . plan implementation shall include participation by the general public . . . 4. . . .The Citizen Involvement Program is recognized as the primary body advising the Board as to . . . Because of their regular meeting schedule and expertise, the Planning Commissions have been designated as Lane County’s Citizen Involvement Program Committees. 5. The program of communicating with chartered community organizations shall be continued. 6. Identification of priorities for and adoption of capital improvement programs shall be done through the citizen involvement program.

Findings addressing statewide planning goal 1 above demonstrate that the plan amendment is consistent with the above policies, and are incorporated here by reference. Additional findings with regard to policy 6 above are as follows. The TSP, page 64 addresses future spending and prioritization, noting that priority setting shall occur through the Capital Improvement Program process. TSP Goal 1, 23, and 24 address priority setting, and the Planning Commission has reviewed and endorsed these policies as adopted. Therefore the amendment is consistent with the above goal and applicable policies 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 above.

Goal 2: Land Use Planning 3. All products of the County Planning process shall be made available for public review and comment and shall be adopted through the hearings process. 5. The Lane County Planning Commission shall have primary advisory authority to the Board of County Commissioners for and Countywide land use policy issues.

All products proposed for adoption herein have been made available for public review as discussed in findings for statewide planning Goal 1, above, incorporated here by reference. The Lane County Planning Commission’s advice was sought and used prior to adoption of these products by the Board. Therefore the amendment is consistent with the above goal and applicable policies 3 and 5.

Goal 3: Agricultural Lands 3. Reserve the use of the best agricultural soils exclusively for agricultural purposes. 5. Use planning and implementation techniques that reflect appropriate uses and treatment for each type of land. 8. Provide maximum protection to agricultural activities . . 13. No County policy shall be construed to exclude permitted and specially permitted nonfarm uses, as defined in ORS Chapter 215.213 and OAR 660 Division 33, from the EFU zones . . .

H-8

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

TSP Policy 20-a and associated Code changes specify transportation facilities and uses allowed on agricultural lands, consistent with ORS Chapter 215.213 and OAR 660 Division 33. By doing so, the amendments are consistent with the above Goal and applicable policy statements.

Goal 4: Forest Lands Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Goal 8: Recreational Needs Goal 9: Economy of the State Goal 10: Housing

The TSP update does not include any changes relevant to management of areas subject to the above goals 4 through 10, or associated policies, so those goals are not relevant to this amendment.

Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services 4. Lane County shall maintain an active role to provide the facilities and services needed to make quality health, social and cultural services available and accessible to all Lane County residents . . .

Transportation facilities are defined as public facilities under statewide land use Goal 11. By adopting this updated TSP, Lane County is maintaining an active role in providing transportation facilities needed to make the referenced services available and accessible to all County residents.

5. Lane County shall participate in the coordination of planning and development for various public facilities and utility services. The primary means of effecting this policy shall be through a system whereby land use application shall be referred to the various providers of services . . .

Lane County has primary responsibility for the coordination of planning and development for County-maintained transportation facilities. Coordination with other service providers, including cities, Lane Transit District, utilities, special districts, and other public agencies, has been a high priority of this amendment effort. All known entities listed above were included on mailing lists for informational meetings and public hearings. Applicable agencies and service providers were directly consulted regarding the accuracy of information and policies affecting their operations. Based upon the above findings, the amendment is consistent with Goal 11 and applicable policies.

Goal 12: Transportation 1. Lane County shall strive for a coordinated and balanced transportation system which

complies with LCDC Goal 12 and is responsive to the economic, social and environmental considerations, and which will work toward the following objectives: a. Safe, convenient and economical transportation for all people, materials and services

The TSP update (TSP) complies with LCDC Goal 12 as demonstrated in the findings for that goal contained above in this document. The TSP is responsive to economic, social and environmental considerations, and works toward the objectives of safety, convenience, and economical transportation for all people, materials and services as demonstrated by all the goals and associated policies in the document.

b. An effective distribution of transportation options.

H-9

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

Transportation options are effectively distributed to the extent possible given Lane County’s primarily rural character and lack of development in rural areas. The TSP demonstrates consideration for all transportation options available, as required under statewide land use Goal 12.

c. A transportation system responsive to changing needs and conditions.

Adoption of the updated TSP is meant to comply with state regulations and to address changing needs and conditions, demonstrating consistency with this policy statement.

d. Consideration of direct and indirect impacts of proposed transportation projects on the environment, energy resources, economy and general livability.

The TSP is primarily concerned with rural Lane County which is generally in resource land zoning and use. The findings in this document demonstrate compliance with all statewide planning goals regulating these resource lands and the related environment, energy resources, economy and general livability of these areas. The needs assessment contained in the TSP also demonstrates consideration of unincorporated communities as to access for bicycle and pedestrian travel from residential areas to nearby commercial areas and employment centers. The project list included in the TSP includes projects specifically designed to improve pedestrian access, and policies require provision of bus turnouts. Consideration for freight movement and multiple transportation modes including air, transit, and other modes demonstrates consideration of impacts on the environment, energy resources, economy and general livability.

e. Public participation in the transportation planning process.

Findings for statewide Goal 1 and for Lane County Goal 1 demonstrate consistency with this objective. In addition, adopted changes to Lane Manual concerning citizen involvement in the Capital Improvement Program promotes the above objective by allowing for a stakeholder process to enhance public participation in project design.

f. Coordination with the development of statewide comprehensive transportation plans.

Coordination was of primary concern in developing the TSP. ODOT was consulted and has testified to being generally satisfied with the updated TSP.

g. Encouragement of energy-efficient modes of transportation.

Updated TSP policies associated with, and Goals 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 promote alternative, energy efficient transportation modes.

h. Safe and convenient opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel throughout population areas of Lane County.

Updated TSP Goals 6, 7, and 8 and associated policies promote safe and convenient opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Policy 1-e also accomplishes this by promoting alternative transportation modes when roads are improved, through the provision of sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus stop turnouts. Additionally, the project list includes bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented projects, based upon a needs assessment that specifically considered safe and convenient opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel.

i. An efficient public transportation service, which meets demonstrated needs for alternative transportation.

H-10

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

As a regional, independent service, Lane County has limited control over the management of public transportation but does participate in associated committee, task force, and lobbying activities. As reflected in the TSP, public transportation services are provided to rural Lane County to the extent possible given limited populations in these areas, and given legal and economic constraints. Goals 10, 11, and 12 of the updated TSP and associated policies demonstrate consistency with the above objective to the extent possible.

j. An appropriate level of general and commercial aviation development.

The updated TSP supports general and commercial aviation development through supportive goals and associated policies 14, 15, and 16.

k. The development of the Port of Siuslaw consistent with adopted policies and plans.

The updated TSP supports development of the Port of Siuslaw through supportive goals and associated policies 17 and 18.

2. In managing the transportation system toward the fulfillment of adopted County land use goals and plans, Lane County shall: a. Provide transportation services as necessary to accommodate growth concentrated within existing communities.

While city TSPs are the primary policy documents for existing incorporated communities, the updated County TSP is consistent with these TSPs. For example, the TSP project list includes all projects listed in city TSPs. These city projects are designed to accommodate growth in the corresponding communities. The project list also includes road improvements associated with unincorporated communities where need was demonstrated through the needs assessment in the TSP document. Other transportation modes serving growth within existing communities are addressed primarily in city TSPs.

b. Discourage the spread of residential development in agricultural and forest areas.

By complying with statewide land use goals as demonstrated in the findings above, the TSP discourages the spread of residential development in agricultural and forest areas.

c. Guide the transportation pattern of newly developing areas and rural communities.

To the extent allowed under statewide planning goals, TSP Goals and associated policies 20, 21, and 22, and associated regulations that are being adopted provide for road improvements to serve new development in a manner that contemplates the future transportation pattern by considering factors such as the logical extension of County Roads, road functional classifications, access management, and provision of improvements to serve new development consistent with statewide land use goals.

d. Ensure that transportation improvements are consistent with adopted public policies and plans. e. Ensure that road development or improvement is consistent with adopted plan and policies.

Transportation improvements must show compliance with the adopted County Comprehensive Plan including the updated TSP and with adopted land use regulations, demonstrating consistency with the above two objectives.

H-11

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

3. Lane County shall seek an efficient, safe and attractive highway network to serve the existing and future arrangement of land uses by striving toward the following objectives: a. Make improved safety for the traveling public a primary consideration in the expenditure of resources.

Improved safety is the first goal of the updated TSP and policy 1-c specifies that safety is the first priority in making decisions about roadway operations, maintenance, and repair.

b. Ensure that all road construction meets adopted uniform standards unless excepted for substantial reason.

New road design standards and corresponding policies being adopted in the updated TSP apply to publicly and privately initiated road improvement projects. In particular, Goal 1 in the updated TSP and associated policies will uniformly guide road construction.

c. Provide for timely development of streets and roads in community development centers.

Development of streets and roads in community development centers are programmed primarily in city TSPs. The County TSP needs assessment and project list, and requirements for traffic impact analysis and maintaining acceptable performance levels, provide for timely development of necessary street and road improvements for County roads within community development centers.

d. Include aesthetic considerations in maintenance, construction or improvement within County road right-of-way.

Aesthetics are incorporated into road design standards being adopted with the updated TSP. Aesthetics are also considered in policies that encourage setback sidewalks and the involvement of adjacent neighborhoods in project design.

e. Minimize frontage access onto the County’s collector and arterial roads.

Access onto County collector and arterial roads will be minimized under new TSP Goal 3 and associated policies, and associated regulations providing spacing standards and other access management provisions.

f. Ensure that future route selection considers the indirect costs as well as the direct costs of construction.

Direct and indirect costs are considered at several levels as part of the TSP update. Individual project designs are subject to citizen involvement processes. All projects must be consistent with land use policies and regulations. Alternative transportation modes to promote reduced energy use and pollution are encouraged. Projects must comply with environmental regulations and best management practices administered by state, federal, and local agencies.

g. Discourage strip development between the County’s urban service areas and their satellite communities.

The TSP update discourages strip development by complying with statewide land use goals as shown in the findings above.

h. To the extent possible, coordinate implementation of new highway facilities with land development needs to minimize stimulation of untimely land development.

H-12 Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan

Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

The TSP minimizes stimulation of untimely land development and coordinates implementation of new highway facilities with land development to the extent possible by complying with statewide land use laws and coordinating with the state in development of the TSP.

i. Ensure that street and highway development or improvement is integrated with and complementary to other transportation modes.

TSP policies provide for coordination with other transportation modes.

j. Maintain County roads and bridges adequately to meet the needs of the trucking industry consistent with adopted land use plans for the area.

Maintaining the County road system and bridges is specified as a priority under Goal 1 of the updated TSP. Policy 1-f states, “Maintain county arterial and collector roads sufficiently for the safe and efficient movement of freight, consistent with applicable traffic impact analysis, design policies and standards and land use regulations.”

k. Establish priority trucking routes, which minimize conflicts with incompatible land uses and area of congestion.

Trucking routes are established for state roads outside of this amendment process. No changes are proposed to established trucking routes.

4. The adopted Lane County Rural Transportation Plan is a special-function Plan concerned with Goal 12 requirements, and containing a number of Goalsand Policies regarding various components of the County’s transportation system and Goal 12 requirements. The Transportation System Plan, as amended and adopted in 2004, shall be applied where appropriate; policies shall be considered to be mandatory actions, which are ultimately binding on the County.

The paragraph above reflects changes that will be adopted as part of this amendment. Additional findings regarding the above policy are not necessary.

Goal 13: Energy Conservation 2. Lane County shall encourage energy conservation in the development and of public

facilities, services and utilities and in the development and use of electrical and communication systems.

The goals and policies that promote alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel reflect that the TSP update encourages energy conservation to the extent possible.

3. Lane County shall establish programs when financially reasonable to promote the stated goal through intergovernmental cooperation, to increase public awareness of the benefits of energy conservation and to revise existing programs concerning land use, transportation, existing and new building.

In complying with the Transportation Planning Rule concerning intergovernmental coordination, alternative transportation modes, and integration of land use and transportation facility decision-making, the updated TSP promotes intergovernmental cooperation in energy conservation measures.

Goal 14: Urbanization Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway

H-13

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

Goal 16: Estuarine Resources Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes Goal 19: Ocean Resources

The TSP update does not include any changes relevant to management of areas subject to the above goals 14 through 19 or associated policies, so those goals are not relevant to this amendment.

7. Based upon all of the above findings, the Board concludes that the proposed TSP update and incorporation

of TSP policies into the County General Plan policies is consistent with the requirements set forth in the applicable approval criteria. Therefore, the Board approves adoption of the proposal.

H-14

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

Appendix A: Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic AOC Association of Oregon Counties APWA American Public Works Association BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad BRT Bus Rapid Transit CBE Crushed Base Equivalent (pertaining to pavement structure) CIP Capital Improvement Program CWA Clean Water Act DLCD Department of Land Conservation and Development EPCT Eugene to Pacific Crest Trail EFU Exclusive Farm Use zone F-2 Impacted Forest zone FHWA Federal Highway Administration FY Fiscal Year HCM Highway Capacity Manual ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act LC Lane Code LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission LCOG Lane Council of Governments LCPC Lane County Planning Commission LM Lane Manual LMD (Lane County Public Works) Land Management Division LOS Level of Service LTD Lane Transit District MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area (U.S. Census) MUTCD Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program OAR Oregon Administrative Rule ODA Oregon Department of Aviation ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OHP Oregon Highway Plan ORS Oregon Revised Statutes PCI Pavement Condition Index PIP Public Involvement Plan RAC (Lane County) Roads Advisory Committee RLID Regional Land Information Database ROW, R/W Right-of-Way SDC System Development Charge STAC Special Transportation Advisory Committee STF Special Transportation Funds for the Elderly and Disabled STIP State Transportation Improvement Plan STP Special Transportation Program TDM Transportation Demand Management TEA-21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TPR Transportation Planning Rule TRB Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council TSP Transportation System Plan UGB Urban Growth Boundary USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers V/C Volume to Capacity (Ratio) VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

Appendix B: County Roads Inventory The Inventory in Appendix B represents the County Road system at the time this document was adopted. It is essentially a snapshot in time, and all data included in the inventory is subject to change. LEGEND Road ID – Road number assigned to the road segment by Lane County Road Name – Legal name of Road BMP – Beginning Mile Post of road segment EMP – Ending Mile Post of road segment Functional Class – The classification of a road segment according to its expected level of service

and function. Terrain – The topography of the road segment. L=Level, R=Rolling, M=Mountainous.

If a discrepancy exists with the Terrain data appearing in the inventory, the following terrain definitions shall prevail:

a) Roads where no 500’ segment exceeds 5% in grade shall be considered

Level. b) Roads where any 500’ segment exceeds 5% in grade but does not exceed

8% in grade shall be considered Rolling. c) Roads where any 500’ segment exceeds 8% in grade shall be considered

Mountainous.

• In level terrain, highway sight distance, as governed by both horizontal and vertical restrictions, is generally long or can be made to be so without construction difficulty or major expense.

• In rolling terrain, natural slopes consistently rise above and below the road or

street grade, and occasional steep slopes offer some restriction to normal horizontal and vertical roadway alignment.

• In mountainous terrain, longitudinal and transverse changes in the elevation

of the ground with respect to the road are abrupt, and benching and side hill excavation are frequently needed to obtain acceptable horizontal and vertical alignment.

PCI – Pavement Condition Index. A method of rating the surface condition of pavement

on a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is the best. CBE - Crushed Base Equivalent. An indicator of the underlying structural integrity of

the roadway expressed as an equivalent depth of crushed rock in inches. Width - The measured width of travel surface on identified road segment. ADT Volume - The most recently measured Average Daily Traffic volume expressed as

number of vehicles per day.

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-1

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

530200 01ST AVE 0.000 0.235 Urban Local L 63 3.8 16 80 530200 01ST AVE 0.235 0.533 Urban Local L 34 28 530200 01ST AVE 0.533 0.643 Urban Local L 69 16 530285 01ST AVE LOOP 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 40 28 186200 01ST ST 0.000 0.307 Rural Local L 20 6.5 20 390 504200 01ST ST 0.000 0.154 Rural Local R 88 5.5 20 504260 01ST ST CUL 0.000 0.021 Rural Local L 23 18 530500 02ND AVE 0.000 0.057 Urban Local L 85 3.8 16 50 530600 02ND PL 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 88 9.8 18 100300 02ND ST SO 0.355 0.879 Urban Major Collector R 95 23.0 22 1100 528900 03RD AVE 0.000 0.252 Urban Local L 75 3.8 16 529200 03RD AVE 0.000 0.135 Urban Local L 69 3.8 16 530400 03RD PL 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 94 9.8 16 177800 03RD ST 0.000 0.223 Urban Local L 96 9.0 28 600 512500 03RD ST 0.000 0.130 Rural Local L 100 5.0 13 30 528500 04TH AVE 0.000 0.562 Urban Local L 100 17.0 20 650 530100 05TH AVE 0.000 0.270 Urban Local L 68 8.8 16 153000 05TH ST 0.000 0.068 Urban Local L 61 40 4800 177700 05TH ST 0.000 0.217 Urban Local L 95 26 800 530300 06TH AVE 0.000 0.075 Urban Local L 59 3.8 16 346500 06TH AVE WEST 0.520 0.850 Rural Major Collector L 9.5 36 2500 162600 06TH ST 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 94 15.5 32 362400 06TH ST 0.060 0.236 Rural Local L 82 16 362400 06TH ST 0.236 0.355 Rural Local L 362400 06TH ST 0.355 0.450 Rural Local L 67 17 362400 06TH ST 0.450 0.525 Rural Local L 90 18 211700 06TH ST NO 0.176 0.366 Urban Local L 1 20 221800 06TH ST SO 0.704 1.075 Urban Minor Arterial L 86 38 3200 221800 06TH ST SO 1.075 1.450 Rural Major Collector L 86 23.0 38 2550 221800 06TH ST SO 1.450 2.197 Rural Major Collector L 70 29.5 34 4500 163400 07TH ST 0.000 0.067 Urban Local L 98 10.0 16 260 361900 08TH ST 0.000 0.550 Rural Local L 76 20 700

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-2

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

361905 08TH ST (Y) 0.000 0.042 Rural Local L 89 25 346800 10TH AVE WEST 0.495 0.841 Rural Major Collector L 18.0 36 800 222000 10TH ST SO 0.000 0.105 Urban Local L 73 13.5 16 20 347400 11TH ST 0.000 0.082 Urban Local L 96 10.3 20 222100 11TH ST SO 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 62 6.0 16 222200 12TH ST SO 0.000 0.048 Urban Local L 53 3.5 16 183200 14TH AVE EAST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 97 8.5 20 183200 14TH AVE EAST 0.120 0.189 Urban Local L 98 20 154000 14TH PL 0.000 0.080 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 70 183300 15TH AVE EAST 0.116 0.240 Urban Local L 97 11.8 18 100 177600 15TH ST 0.000 0.171 Urban Local L 100 14.0 36 270 180600 15TH ST 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 100 10.0 32 183400 16TH AVE EAST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 79 16.0 14 154200 16TH ST 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 100 13.0 32 330 154500 16TH ST 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 100 10.0 32 320 154530 16TH ST (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 100 32 154560 16TH ST (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 100 32 183500 17TH AVE EAST 0.000 0.119 Urban Local L 97 10.0 20 182900 17TH AVE EAST 0.185 0.293 Urban Local L 100 20.5 44 2450 154600 17TH PL 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 190 154630 17TH PL (CUL) 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 100 32 154700 17TH ST 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 100 15.0 32 220 162300 17TH ST 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 191200 17TH ST 0.000 0.078 Urban Local L 44 11.0 20 191900 17TH ST 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 97 8.0 28 347500 18TH AVE EAST & DEAL ST 0.000 0.300 Rural Minor Collector L 74 20 950 347300 18TH AVE WEST 0.000 0.854 Urban Major Collector L 81 20.5 22 950 182200 19TH AVE EAST 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 100 22 900 182200 19TH AVE EAST 0.140 0.497 Urban Local L 100 12.3 22 950 191000 19TH ST 0.000 0.392 Urban Major Collector L 90 14.5 24 10200 177300 20TH ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 93 8.0 28 430 191400 20TH ST 0.000 0.081 Urban Local L 93 13.0 32 613200 20TH ST 0.000 0.060 Urban Local R 93 15.5 20 177300 20TH ST 0.070 0.360 Urban Local L 90 18.0 32 490

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-3

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

177300 20TH ST 0.360 0.371 Urban Local L 90 32 177350 20TH ST CUL 0.000 0.016 Urban Local L 98 69 177360 20TH ST CUL 0.000 0.016 Urban Local L 97 70 177400 21ST ST 0.000 0.252 Urban Local L 97 9.5 26 340 613300 22ND ST 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 88 14.3 23 180900 23RD ST 0.000 0.252 Urban Minor Collector L 93 20 1400 181200 23RD ST 0.000 0.078 Urban Local L 85 13.0 32 613400 24TH ST 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 88 11.5 20 101500 26TH ST SO 0.000 0.216 Rural Local L 95 11.0 20 20 101500 26TH ST SO 0.216 0.360 Rural Local L 20 527800 26TH ST WEST 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 99 7.0 34 154800 27TH ST 0.000 0.098 Urban Local L 97 15.0 32 320 180800 28TH ST 0.000 0.161 Urban Local L 84 19.0 16 140 101000 28TH ST SO 0.660 0.795 Urban Local L 95 11.0 24 220 185000 30TH AVE 0.000 0.100 Urban Minor Arterial L 55 22 16000 185000 30TH AVE 0.100 1.500 Urban Minor Arterial R 83 20.0 40 11200 185000 30TH AVE 1.500 1.670 Urban Minor Arterial R 88 54 185000 30TH AVE 1.670 2.109 Urban Minor Arterial R 88 18.0 54 185600 30TH AVE FRONTAGE RD 0.000 0.326 Rural Local L 64 20 80 185600 30TH AVE FRONTAGE RD 0.594 0.630 Rural Local L 57 22 1100 185695 30TH AVE FRONTAGE RD (Y) 0.606 0.657 Rural Local L 50 19 185003 30TH AVE NE RAMP #10 0.000 0.121 Urban Minor Arterial L 80 26 185001 30TH AVE NW RAMP #21 0.000 0.152 Urban Minor Arterial L 87 26 1350 185002 30TH AVE SW RAMP #30 0.000 0.135 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 26 2250 185004 30TH AVE SW RAMP #30 0.000 0.182 Urban Minor Arterial L 93 26 185005 30TH AVE SW RAMP #30 (Y) 0.118 0.143 Urban Minor Arterial L 94 16 192500 31ST ST / 28TH ST 0.542 0.905 Urban Major Collector L 91 7.0 20 1700 155300 32ND ST 0.000 0.105 Urban Local L 91 13.0 30 160 177500 33RD ST 0.000 0.148 Urban Local L 95 17.0 28 101400 34TH PL SO 0.000 0.188 Urban Local L 100 17.0 32 160 176700 34TH ST 0.000 0.241 Urban Local L 94 10.7 26 260 176720 34TH ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 90 13.0 26 176760 34TH ST CUL 'B' 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 97 9.5 26 176780 34TH ST CUL 'C' 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 98 28

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-4

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

177200 35TH PL 0.000 0.039 Urban Local L 94 15.0 28 176900 35TH ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 95 15.0 28 270 176900 35TH ST 0.100 0.218 Urban Local L 96 9.0 26 155500 37TH ST 0.000 0.130 Urban Local L 98 11.0 32 260 155570 37TH ST (CUL) 0.000 0.071 Urban Local L 96 15.0 32 155600 38TH ST 0.000 0.116 Urban Local L 96 12.0 32 140 102000 39TH ST SO 0.000 0.260 Urban Local L 100 18.0 36 1400 102000 39TH ST SO 0.260 0.264 Urban Local L 100 18 102000 39TH ST SO 0.264 0.387 Urban Local L 100 18 102030 39TH ST SO (CUL) 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 100 17.0 35 102040 39TH ST SO (CUL) 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 100 18.0 32 102050 39TH ST SO (CUL) 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 100 18.0 32 125800 40TH AVE WEST 0.000 0.140 Rural Local R 39 10.0 20 102800 40TH PL SO 0.000 0.096 Urban Local L 100 10.5 26 230 199800 44TH AVE WEST 0.000 0.045 Rural Local L 66 20 199700 57TH ST SO 0.000 0.355 Urban Major Collector R ~100 20 7450 103700 66TH ST 0.050 0.241 Urban Local L 84 18 350 103700 66TH ST 0.241 0.652 Rural Local L 84 18 104600 79TH ST SO 0.000 0.536 Urban Local L 50 8.0 20 380 197100 A ST 0.000 0.069 Rural Local L 85 11.5 22 266000 ADAMS RD 0.000 0.499 Rural Local L 61 13.0 22 70 325600 ADMIRAL ST 0.000 0.288 Urban Local L 95 15.0 36 450 325620 ADMIRAL ST CUL 0.000 0.021 Urban Local L 96 70 325690 ADMIRAL ST CUL 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 89 70 325640 ADMIRAL ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 92 12.0 28 325650 ADMIRAL ST CUL 'B' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 94 12.0 28 342800 AIRPORT RD 0.670 1.320 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 20.5 44 3950 342800 AIRPORT RD 1.320 1.326 Rural Minor Arterial L 88 30 342800 AIRPORT RD 1.326 1.690 Rural Local L 88 14.3 30 1100 614400 AIRPORT RD (OAKRIDGE) 0.000 0.951 Rural Local M 85 10.3 18 150 614460 AIRPORT RD (OAKRIDGE) 0.000 0.304 Rural Local L 95 21 326000 ALAMEDA ST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 97 18.0 38 138800 ALBERTA LN 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 95 11.0 24 120 194400 ALDER BRANCH RD 0.000 0.710 Rural Local L 92 6.8 19 90

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-5

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

363200 ALDERWOOD DR 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 92 20 30 363200 ALDERWOOD DR 0.050 0.122 Rural Local L 19 363200 ALDERWOOD DR 0.122 0.266 Rural Local L 14 135000 ALDERWOOD ST 0.000 0.108 Urban Local L 87 16.5 22 120 135900 ALDERWOOD ST 0.000 0.154 Urban Local L 63 11.0 26 514300 ALEXANDER RD 0.000 0.540 Rural Local L 8.0 12 319300 ALLADIN WAY 0.000 0.131 Urban Local L 92 14.5 32 362800 ALLEN & BALES RD 0.000 0.272 Rural Local L 100 20 110 151500 ALLEN AVE 0.000 0.057 Urban Local L 90 11.0 20 156500 ALLEN AVE 0.000 0.175 Urban Local L 90 12.0 26 257500 ALLEN RD 0.000 0.560 Rural Local M 84 7.0 18 70 257500 ALLEN RD 0.560 0.770 Rural Local R 55 12 257500 ALLEN RD 0.770 0.970 Rural Local R 13 435200 ALLISON RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 97 10.5 16 80 435200 ALLISON RD 0.500 0.888 Rural Local R 88 16 435205 ALLISON RD (Y) 0.000 0.022 Rural Local R 100 18 317200 ALTURA ST 0.000 0.195 Urban Local L 88 18.0 36 317230 ALTURA ST CUL 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 94 14.0 32 361500 ALVADORE RD 0.000 3.587 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 17.0 26 600

361500 ALVADORE RD 3.587 6.100 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

81 14.6 26 1400

361500 ALVADORE RD 6.100 6.282 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

90 30 1500

324300 ALYNDALE DR 0.000 0.389 Urban Local L 95 18.0 28 324400 ALYNDALE DR 0.000 0.160 Urban Local L 86 19.0 28 326400 AMESBURY AVE 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 96 7.0 28 321300 ANCHOR AVE 0.000 0.082 Urban Local L 96 17.0 26 322200 ANCHOR AVE EAST 0.000 0.266 Urban Local L 97 15.0 26 380 322000 ANCHOR AVE WEST 0.000 0.359 Urban Local L 94 11.0 30 430 144000 ANDERSEN LN 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 89 12.0 32 150700 ANDERSON LN 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 96 10.5 22 165800 ANDERSON LN 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 93 29 1650 165800 ANDERSON LN 0.120 0.301 Urban Local L 94 15.0 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-6

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

150710 ANDERSON LN (CUL) 0.000 0.033 Urban Local L 165860 ANDERSON LN (CUL) 0.000 0.053 Urban Local L 97 32 165870 ANDERSON LN (CUL) 0.000 0.053 Urban Local L 94 32 165890 ANDERSON LN (CUL) 0.000 0.053 Urban Local L 94 32 318400 ANDOVER ST 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 109000 ANGELS FLIGHT RD 0.000 1.788 Rural Local R 74 11.0 12 160 152400 ANN CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 91 6.0 20 134900 APPLE DR 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 88 14.0 32 362200 APPLEGATE TRAIL 0.000 2.584 Rural Minor Collector R 84 22 1600 410200 APPLETREE CT 0.000 0.238 Rural Local R 90 13.5 24 410100 APPLETREE DR 0.000 1.501 Rural Local M 81 11.0 24 110 528100 ARAGO ST 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 77 3.8 16 160 529300 ARCH ST 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 74 3.9 16 504100 ARCHER LN 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 4.0 13 320700 ARCHWOOD ST 0.000 0.183 Urban Local L 97 12.0 28 319800 ARGON AVE 0.000 0.085 Urban Local L 92 17.5 17 171900 ARMITAGE RD 0.000 1.177 Urban Local L 61 20 650 135300 ARMSTRONG AVE 0.000 0.296 Urban Local L 61 14.5 26 210 270300 ARNE LN 0.000 0.112 Rural Local R 95 8.5 20 400500 ARNOLD LN 0.000 0.777 Rural Local L 87 11.0 24 500 320100 ARROWHEAD ST 0.000 0.230 Urban Minor Collector L 95 16.5 22 900 320100 ARROWHEAD ST 0.230 0.234 Urban Minor Collector L 95 36 320100 ARROWHEAD ST 0.234 0.350 Urban Local L 89 36 320100 ARROWHEAD ST 0.623 0.708 Urban Local L 91 22 100800 ASH ST 0.000 0.198 Urban Local L 94 13 167500 ASPEN ST 0.000 0.181 Urban Minor Collector L 84 25 1800 167500 ASPEN ST 0.337 0.441 Urban Minor Collector L 82 22 216900 ASTORIA AVE 0.000 0.034 Rural Local L 100 15.0 36 135400 AUDEL AVE 0.000 0.204 Urban Local L 92 15.5 32 330 135460 AUDEL AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 93 32 438700 AUSTA RD 0.000 0.144 Rural Local R 87 10.3 18 90 332300 AUTUMN AVE 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 97 17.0 32 344000 AWBREY LN 0.000 0.170 Rural Major Collector L 88 22 1300 344000 AWBREY LN 0.170 1.340 Rural Major Collector L 88 11.0 22 1050

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-7

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

344000 AWBREY LN 1.340 1.350 Rural Major Collector L 22 344000 AWBREY LN 1.350 1.587 Rural Major Collector L 59 10.3 28 1000 329200 AZALEA AVE 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 95 14.0 26 186000 B ST 0.000 0.124 Rural Local L 49 6.5 20 197200 B ST 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 94 9.5 16 362000 B ST 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 82 18 362000 B ST 0.140 0.267 Rural Local L 93 18 220500 BACHMANN LN 0.000 0.136 Rural Local L 98 14.0 17 122400 BAILEY HILL LP RD 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 24 18 122400 BAILEY HILL LP RD 0.090 0.262 Rural Local L 24 18 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 1.660 2.140 Rural Major Collector R 89 16.5 25 5650 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 2.140 2.498 Rural Major Collector R 88 30 4250 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 2.498 3.010 Rural Major Collector R 88 30 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 3.010 3.113 Rural Major Collector R 85 29 121500 BAILEY HILL RD 3.113 4.616 Rural Major Collector R 85 22.3 29 3600 355000 BAILEY LN 0.000 0.252 Rural Local L 100 18 180 355000 BAILEY LN 0.252 0.499 Rural Local L 100 18 110 214200 BAILEY RD 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 81 9.5 20 214200 BAILEY RD 0.120 0.220 Rural Local L 10 608100 BAIN LN 0.000 0.100 Rural Local R 8.0 10 522000 BAKER BEACH RD 0.000 0.480 Rural Local L 5.0 16 20 402600 BAKER RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 78 9.0 20 210 402600 BAKER RD 0.500 0.640 Rural Local L 79 20 402600 BAKER RD 0.640 1.000 Rural Local L 15 402605 BAKER RD (Y) 0.000 0.061 Rural Local L 85 20 387000 BANGS RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 85 36 460 387000 BANGS RD 0.150 0.500 Rural Local L 90 22 318800 BANNER ST 0.000 0.221 Urban Local L 93 15.0 28 321900 BANNER ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 93 8.0 28 321900 BANNER ST 0.100 0.319 Urban Local L 94 13.0 32 316900 BANOVER ST 0.000 0.086 Urban Local L 93 15.0 30 326900 BANTON AVE & CUL 0.000 0.470 Urban Local L 89 8.0 28 600 611600 BARBRE RD 0.000 0.620 Rural Local L 69 11.3 20 470 146500 BARGER DR 2.225 2.663 Rural Major Collector L 98 11.5 20 3725

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-8

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

373000 BARKER RD 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 98 28 550 373000 BARKER RD 0.060 0.311 Rural Local L 73 18 139300 BARRETT AVE 0.000 0.193 Urban Local L 92 18.5 28 320900 BARSTOW AVE 0.000 0.258 Urban Minor Collector L 97 11.0 36 425 137700 BARTON DR 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 95 13.5 28 136400 BARTON ST 0.000 0.126 Urban Local L 94 11.0 26 515500 BASSONETTE RD 0.000 0.080 Rural Local R 14 515500 BASSONETTE RD 0.080 0.095 Rural Local R 92 14 515500 BASSONETTE RD 0.095 0.577 Rural Local R 6.0 14 515505 BASSONETTE RD (Y) 0.000 0.033 Rural Local R 14 408200 BATTLE CR RD 0.000 3.360 Rural Local L ~52 20 140 408200 BATTLE CR RD 3.360 4.935 Rural Local R 15 10 408220 BATTLE CR RD (STUB/BR) 0.000 0.094 Rural Local L 22 138600 BAUER LN 0.000 0.205 Urban Local L 94 10.0 24 270 142300 BAUER LN CUL 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 88 17.0 26 524100 BAYBERRY DR 0.000 0.277 Rural Local L 88 5.8 20 200 326200 BAYWOOD ST 0.000 0.162 Urban Local L 95 16.0 28 219400 BEACH RD 0.000 1.456 Rural Local L 76 13.5 20 130 315000 BEACON DR EAST 0.000 0.740 Urban Minor Collector L 40 26 950 315000 BEACON DR EAST 0.740 0.749 Urban Minor Collector L 65 20 315000 BEACON DR EAST 0.749 0.830 Urban Local L 65 20 370 315000 BEACON DR EAST 0.830 1.300 Urban Local L 65 13.5 20 315000 BEACON DR EAST 1.300 1.916 Urban Local L 64 15.5 20 240 315600 BEACON DR WEST 0.000 0.154 Rural Minor Collector L 97 22 1450 315600 BEACON DR WEST 0.154 1.000 Rural Minor Collector L 97 21.3 22 315600 BEACON DR WEST 1.000 1.172 Rural Minor Collector L 97 22 1350 361400 BEAR CR RANCH RD 0.000 0.491 Rural Local R 81 24 602800 BEAR CR RD 0.000 2.160 Rural Minor Collector R 89 21.5 24 700 602800 BEAR CR RD 2.160 2.850 Rural Local L 92 22 602800 BEAR CR RD 2.850 3.170 Rural Local R 78 18 602900 BEAR CR RD CUL 0.000 0.056 Rural Local L 86 14.0 22 131100 BEAVER ST 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 60 20 332100 BEAVER ST CUL #1 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 95 14.0 32 332400 BEAVER ST CUL #2 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 95 14.0 28

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-9

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

138200 BEEBE LN 0.000 0.230 Urban Local L 94 7.0 20 260 138200 BEEBE LN 0.230 0.350 Urban Local L 62 20 190 113500 BELKNAP SPRINGS RD NO 0.000 0.205 Rural Local L 93 9.5 22 100 114100 BELKNAP SPRINGS RD SO 0.000 0.432 Rural Local L 65 16.0 20 10 523400 BEN BUNCH RD 0.000 0.976 Rural Local R 69 4.5 14 221200 BENNETT CR RD 0.000 0.400 Rural Local L 70 20 700 221200 BENNETT CR RD 0.400 2.989 Rural Local L 70 7.5 20 221204 BENNETT CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.026 Rural Local L 91 13 221205 BENNETT CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.016 Rural Local L 90 14 503400 BERNHARDT CR RD 0.000 0.063 Rural Minor Collector M 93 15 80 503400 BERNHARDT CR RD 0.063 6.985 Rural Minor Collector M 8.1 15 503400 BERNHARDT CR RD 6.985 7.058 Rural Minor Collector M 48 15 505200 BERNHARDT HEIGHTS 0.000 0.350 Rural Local M 10.0 13 50 132700 BERWIN LN 0.000 0.051 Urban Local L 93 10.0 30 132100 BERWIN LN NO 0.000 0.138 Urban Local L 85 12.0 28 320 136700 BETTY LN 0.000 0.124 Urban Local L 88 6.0 20 187500 BEYMER RD 0.000 0.577 Rural Local L 57 16 140 508200 BIG CR RD 0.000 8.940 Rural Local R 6.0 15 30 508200 BIG CR RD 8.940 13.311 Rural Local M 76 13.2 14 624000 BIG FALL CR RD 0.000 7.550 Rural Major Collector M 65 16.9 22 1600 624000 BIG FALL CR RD 7.550 9.110 Rural Major Collector M 84 11.0 22 340 254600 BIGELOW WAY 0.000 0.183 Rural Local L 82 19.0 20 364900 BLACHLY GRANGE RD 0.000 0.395 Rural Local L 85 20 550 323000 BLACKFOOT AVE 0.000 0.300 Urban Minor Collector L 96 16.0 36 1350 323000 BLACKFOOT AVE 0.300 0.806 Urban Minor Collector L 96 14.0 36 1150 334500 BLACKFOOT AVE CUL #3 0.000 0.051 Urban Local L 94 32 334600 BLACKFOOT AVE CUL #4 0.000 0.023 Urban Local L 93 34 157600 BLACKSTONE CT 0.000 0.023 Urban Local L 95 44 157400 BLACKSTONE ST 0.000 0.201 Urban Local L 96 12.0 28 240 162700 BLACKSTONE ST 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 83 15.5 32 529800 BLANCO ST 0.000 0.099 Urban Local L 72 3.8 16 125900 BLANTON HEIGHTS ST 0.000 0.144 Rural Local L 49 18 125600 BLANTON RD 0.000 0.350 Rural Local L 68 22 1300 125600 BLANTON RD 0.350 1.110 Rural Local L 68 22

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-10

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

125600 BLANTON RD 1.110 2.097 Rural Local R 79 20 900 324500 BLAZER AVE 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 89 36 480 324500 BLAZER AVE 0.090 0.310 Urban Local L 94 16.0 28 324550 BLAZER AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 93 32 324570 BLAZER AVE CUL 'B' 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 92 32 507300 BLOCK RD 0.000 0.216 Rural Local L 6.0 11 20 184000 BLOOMBERG RD 0.000 0.870 Rural Local L 95 9.3 22 300 188000 BLOSSOM ST 0.000 0.204 Rural Local L 100 34 550 257200 BLUE MOUNTAIN LANE 0.000 0.720 Rural Local L 9.5 15 277100 BLUE MTN LN (N) 0.000 0.449 Rural Local L 12 257000 BLUE MTN SCHOOL RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Local R 75 16.3 24 380 257000 BLUE MTN SCHOOL RD 1.000 1.500 Rural Local R 59 20 260 257000 BLUE MTN SCHOOL RD 1.500 3.206 Rural Local R 69 10.4 20 110500 BLUE RIVER DR 0.000 1.555 Rural Minor Collector R 74 17.3 22 600 110200 BLUE RIVER RD 0.000 1.640 Rural Local R 68 13.8 22 180 330300 BOBOLINK AVE 0.000 0.230 Urban Local L 96 12.0 30 370 427200 BODENHAMER RD 0.000 1.062 Rural Minor Collector L 88 22.0 24 900 427200 BODENHAMER RD 1.062 1.345 Rural Minor Collector L 88 24 750 427295 BODENHAMER RD (Y) 1.303 1.342 Rural Minor Collector L 98 24 406200 BOLTON HILL RD 0.000 1.171 Rural Major Collector R 89 15.1 26 1750 406200 BOLTON HILL RD 1.171 3.254 Rural Major Collector R 89 11.3 26 400 405600 BOLTON RD EAST 0.556 0.560 Rural Local L 79 8.3 20 800 405600 BOLTON RD EAST 0.560 1.328 Rural Local L 79 20 650 361700 BOND RD 0.000 1.310 Rural Local L 21 60 243000 BOOTH KELLY CAMP RD 0.000 0.560 Rural Local L 84 15.8 20 105900 BOOTH KELLY RD 0.000 1.440 Rural Local L 86 15.0 22 400 534200 BOY SCOUT RD 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 86 10.0 20 220 534200 BOY SCOUT RD 0.050 0.510 Urban Local L 73 20 130200 BOYCE ST 0.000 0.046 Urban Local L 94 10.5 28 605000 BRABHAM RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 89 10.5 18 500 605000 BRABHAM RD 0.500 0.770 Rural Local L 88 18 130 335200 BRADFORD CT 0.000 0.094 Urban Local L 81 15.0 28 602400 BRADFORD RD NO 0.000 0.590 Rural Local L 80 10.5 20 200 603000 BRADFORD RD SO 0.000 0.385 Rural Local L 79 8.0 22 310

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-11

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

603020 BRADFORD RD SO CUL 0.000 0.147 Rural Local L 86 14.7 22 603090 BRADFORD RD SO CUL 0.000 0.125 Rural Local L 84 22 192600 BRADLEY WAY 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 48 11.0 28 112900 BRENT RD 0.000 0.086 Rural Local L 81 12.3 22 134800 BRENTWOOD AVE 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 87 16.5 24 100 135800 BRENTWOOD ST 0.000 0.153 Urban Local L 49 14.0 26 139000 BRIARCLIFF DR 0.060 0.159 Urban Local L 89 16.5 30 650 139100 BRIARCLIFF PL 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 94 17.5 30 315100 BRIARS ST 0.000 0.080 Urban Local L 92 18.0 22 80 315900 BRIARS ST 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 91 16.0 36 315100 BRIARS ST 0.080 0.180 Urban Local L 85 10.0 28 315100 BRIARS ST 0.180 0.278 Urban Local L 93 13.0 36 247000 BRICE CR RD 0.000 2.150 Rural Minor Collector M 75 7.9 20 247000 BRICE CR RD 2.150 3.340 Rural Minor Collector M 78 20 247000 BRICE CR RD 3.340 8.122 Rural Minor Collector M 65 10.6 22 106000 BRIDGE ST 0.000 0.006 Rural Minor Collector L 99 24 106000 BRIDGE ST 0.006 0.190 Rural Minor Collector L 100 11.0 22 106000 BRIDGE ST 0.190 0.295 Rural Minor Collector L 92 22 950 106000 BRIDGE ST 0.295 0.555 Rural Local L 96 22 409000 BRIGGS HILL RD 0.000 2.500 Rural Minor Collector R 62 7.4 20 130 409000 BRIGGS HILL RD 2.500 4.401 Rural Minor Collector R 62 13.0 20 550 607000 BRISTOW RD 0.000 0.406 Rural Local L 89 12.3 18 260 616000 BROCK RD 0.000 1.503 Rural Local R 78 10.3 20 110 335900 BROCKTON PL 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 88 16.0 32 170900 BROOKDALE AVE 0.000 0.103 Urban Local L 93 11.0 28 216300 BROOKHURST ST 0.000 0.171 Urban Local L 99 9.0 36 170 336700 BROTHERTON AVE 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 84 32 628200 BROWN RD 0.000 0.395 Rural Local L 92 10.0 20 220 106700 BRYANT LN 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 96 12.0 22 60 106770 BRYANT LN 0.000 0.048 Rural Local L 84 21 242500 BRYSON-SEARS RD 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 57 20 240 242500 BRYSON-SEARS RD 0.090 1.216 Rural Local L 64 12.3 20 522700 BUCK LAKE DR 0.000 0.159 Rural Local L 84 3.5 18 100 371600 BUCKSKIN DR 0.000 0.456 Rural Local L 94 14.0 22 140

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-12

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

363000 BUD VAUGHAN RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 100 22 240 363000 BUD VAUGHAN RD 0.500 0.900 Rural Local L 100 22 363005 BUD VAUGHAN RD (Y) 0.000 0.028 Rural Local L 95 21 189700 BUFORD PARK RD 0.000 0.824 Rural Local L 7.0 16 600 226200 BURKETT RD 0.000 0.780 Rural Local L 78 22 154900 BURLINGTON AVE 0.000 0.096 Urban Local L 97 8.0 32 318600 BURLWOOD ST 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 87 13.5 28 130500 BUSHNELL LN 0.000 0.337 Urban Local L 88 19.2 24 1175 133300 BUSHNELL LN EAST 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 79 24 133300 BUSHNELL LN EAST 0.020 0.065 Urban Local L 92 14 410 133300 BUSHNELL LN EAST 0.065 0.464 Urban Local L 77 11.0 26 147200 BUSHNELL LN WEST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 98 23.0 22 147200 BUSHNELL LN WEST 0.120 0.203 Urban Local L 0 18 384800 BUTLER RD 0.000 2.200 Rural Local R 76 22 260 402800 BUTLER RD 0.000 0.070 Rural Local R 84 30 140 402800 BUTLER RD 0.070 3.903 Rural Local R 75 9.8 20 150 213300 BUTTE RD 0.450 2.288 Rural Local L 80 20 320 340200 BYRON ST 0.000 0.138 Urban Local L 93 13.0 29 340500 BYRON ST 0.000 0.074 Urban Local L 96 14.0 30 186100 C ST 0.000 0.147 Rural Local L 45 7.3 20 120 329600 CALLA ST 0.000 0.173 Urban Minor Collector L 96 16.0 28 1300 329600 CALLA ST 0.173 0.369 Urban Local L 95 36 329680 CALLA ST CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 96 29 334200 CALUMET AVE 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 18 317700 CALUMET DR 0.000 0.172 Urban Local L 75 13.0 36 213000 CAMAS SWALE RD 0.550 0.743 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 92 26 2950

213000 CAMAS SWALE RD 0.743 7.010 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

19.9 26 2200

156900 CAMBRIDGE ST 0.000 0.143 Urban Local L 93 10.0 28 131500 CAMELOT AVE 0.000 0.082 Urban Local L 96 9.0 28 350 193000 CAMP CR RD 0.000 2.000 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 87 19.0 30 3250

193000 CAMP CR RD 2.000 3.000 Rural Major Collector R 87 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-13

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

(Fed) 193000 CAMP CR RD 3.000 7.000 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 89 30 2050

193000 CAMP CR RD 7.000 8.416 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

89 21.0 30 1100

327600 CAMROSE ST 0.000 0.051 Urban Local L 63 6.5 26 108600 CANAL LN 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 81 4.0 22 40 532000 CANARY RD 0.000 0.686 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 70 17.3 25 2000

532000 CANARY RD 0.686 1.366 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

93 16.3 25 1650

532000 CANARY RD 1.366 5.105 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M

76 17.1 25 750

180700 CANTERBURY ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 92 14.5 36 330100 CANTERBURY ST 0.000 0.334 Urban Local L 92 17.0 36 350 180700 CANTERBURY ST 0.070 0.097 Urban Local L 87 16 423800 CANTRELL RD 0.000 0.230 Rural Local R 67 22 200 423800 CANTRELL RD 0.230 0.500 Rural Local R 67 22 423800 CANTRELL RD 0.500 1.060 Rural Local R 53 18 423800 CANTRELL RD 1.060 2.400 Rural Local L 22 170 423800 CANTRELL RD 2.400 2.530 Rural Local L 69 20 423800 CANTRELL RD 2.530 3.806 Rural Local L 67 8.3 20 280 330000 CARBONA ST 0.000 0.244 Urban Local L 85 11.0 36 290 162100 CARDINAL WAY 0.000 0.138 Urban Local L 95 8.0 26 270600 CARMEN LN 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 80 14.5 24 344100 CAROL AVE 0.000 0.432 Rural Local L 66 12.0 20 132600 CAROLYN DR 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 96 11.0 28 200 132600 CAROLYN DR 0.100 0.135 Urban Local L 96 32 197300 CARSON ST 0.000 0.215 Rural Local L 91 9.3 20 316000 CARTHAGE AVE 0.000 0.431 Urban Local L 96 20.0 36 600 316100 CARTHAGE AVE CUL 0.000 0.089 Urban Local L 97 14.0 32 197800 CARTWRIGHT CR RD 0.000 0.589 Rural Local L 85 13.5 20 140 329500 CASSINIA CT 0.000 0.059 Urban Local L 94 11.5 24 156000 CASTLE DR 0.000 0.225 Urban Local L 88 13.0 26 370

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-14

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

318000 CASTREY ST 0.000 0.049 Urban Local L 100 13.5 28 180 219600 CEA-JACK RD 0.000 0.366 Rural Local L 76 7.5 20 90 343700 CECIL AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 68 14.0 22 274500 CEDAR CR RD 0.000 1.800 Rural Local L 71 8.0 20 270 274500 CEDAR CR RD 1.800 2.224 Rural Local R 8.0 15 531500 CEDAR DR 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 83 5.5 20 105000 CEDAR FLAT RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 33 7.4 18 750 105000 CEDAR FLAT RD 0.500 2.170 Rural Local M 87 16.0 24 340 105000 CEDAR FLAT RD 2.170 2.280 Rural Local R 84 16.0 24 105030 CEDAR FLAT RD (STUB/BR) 0.000 0.008 Rural Local L 5.0 20 608500 CEDAR HILLS DR 0.000 0.220 Rural Local L 88 18.0 28 120 608500 CEDAR HILLS DR 0.220 0.360 Rural Local L 77 20 608550 CEDAR HILLS DR CUL 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 78 27 241800 CEDAR PARK RD NO 0.000 0.670 Rural Local L 52 6.5 20 700 242000 CEDAR PARK RD SO 0.000 0.328 Rural Local L 79 14.3 23 250 602700 CEDARCROFT RD 0.000 0.164 Rural Local L 75 19.0 24 150200 CENTENNIAL BLVD 1.827 2.176 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 62 11800 255300 CENTER ST 0.000 0.270 Rural Local L 72 10.0 20 100900 CENTRAL BLVD 0.050 0.250 Urban Local R 13 10 428800 CENTRAL RD 0.000 1.920 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 83 14.0 28 1850

428800 CENTRAL RD 1.920 4.990 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

84 15.0 22 800

125400 CHAMBERS ST 0.000 0.163 Urban Local L 96 22 125400 CHAMBERS ST 0.163 0.204 Urban Local L 96 22 1350 247300 CHAMPION CR RD 0.000 8.137 Rural Local M 12 325000 CHAPEL DR 0.000 0.129 Urban Local L 95 15.0 26 326300 CHAPMAN DR 0.000 0.357 Urban Local L 98 16.0 22 150 525700 CHAPMAN RD 0.000 0.037 Rural Local R 83 9.5 22 156400 CHATEAU PL 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 94 19.0 28 154100 CHEEK ST 0.000 0.116 Urban Local L 100 17.0 22 110 123400 CHEROKEE DR 0.000 0.690 Rural Local R 90 24 170 138100 CHESTNUT ST 0.000 0.215 Urban Local L 97 17.8 26 220 503200 CHESTNUT ST 0.000 0.244 Rural Local L 82 5.5 22 500

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-15

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

127800 CHEZEM RD 0.000 1.642 Rural Local L 74 18 380 370300 CHILDERS RD 0.000 0.089 Rural Local L 66 22 140 105700 CHITA LOOP 0.000 0.435 Rural Local R 74 11.0 22 180 128400 CHRISTENSEN RD 0.000 0.175 Rural Local R 89 7.3 20 40 128400 CHRISTENSEN RD 0.175 1.039 Rural Local R 13 433200 CHRISTIAN RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 91 7.3 16 50 430300 CHUKAR LN 0.000 0.181 Rural Local L 78 13.3 22 110 622600 CHURCH RD 0.000 0.346 Rural Local L 80 18 622605 CHURCH RD (Y) 0.000 0.013 Rural Local L 80 16 321600 CINDERELLA LP 0.000 0.178 Urban Local L 94 10.0 32 333900 CINDY ST CUL #1 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 95 32 329900 CINNAMON AVE 0.000 0.182 Urban Local L 90 14.0 32 329925 CINNAMON AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 96 14.0 32 329930 CINNAMON AVE CUL 'B' 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 97 15.0 32 329960 CINNAMON AVE CUL 'C' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 94 14.0 32 329970 CINNAMON AVE CUL 'D' 0.000 0.047 Urban Local L 94 14.0 32 323400 CLAIRMONT DR 0.000 0.197 Urban Local L 93 15.0 28 214500 CLAYTON RD 0.000 0.436 Rural Local R 58 10.0 22 534000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.000 0.142 Rural Major Collector L 84 15.0 22 1250 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.000 0.060 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 81 40 6450

370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.060 0.132 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

81 40

370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.132 2.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

81 26.0 40 6600

534000 CLEAR LAKE RD 0.142 2.290 Rural Major Collector R 84 15.0 22 850 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 2.000 2.810 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 40

534000 CLEAR LAKE RD 2.290 4.233 Rural Major Collector R 89 16.2 26 1000 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 2.810 3.399 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 84 40

370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 3.399 5.039 Rural Major Collector L 85 18.0 40 6150 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 5.039 6.997 Rural Major Collector L 86 21.6 40 5200 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 6.997 7.070 Rural Major Collector L 86 40

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-16

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

(Fed) 370000 CLEAR LAKE RD 7.070 8.391 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 92 44 3650

102900 CLEARWATER LN 0.000 0.134 Urban Local L 97 22 650 102900 CLEARWATER LN 0.134 0.512 Urban Local L 97 6.0 22 221700 CLEVELAND ST 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 18 601000 CLOVERDALE RD 0.000 3.276 Rural Minor Arterial L 98 18.0 24 2000 528300 COAST GUARD STATION RD 0.000 0.112 Rural Local L 83 8.0 18 200 163000 COBURG BOTTOM LP 0.000 0.181 Rural Local L 96 30 750 163000 COBURG BOTTOM LP 0.181 0.530 Rural Local L 96 30 163000 COBURG BOTTOM LP 0.530 2.865 Rural Local L 95 26 550 163095 COBURG BOTTOM LP (Y) 2.790 2.865 Rural Local L 96 25 164300 COBURG INDUST WAY 0.000 0.766 Urban Minor Collector L 92 20.0 42 5300 150000 COBURG RD 3.314 3.500 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 30 7300 150000 COBURG RD 3.500 4.050 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 11.0 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.050 4.350 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 30 8150 150000 COBURG RD 4.350 4.430 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.430 4.700 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.700 4.836 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.836 4.901 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.901 4.930 Rural Minor Arterial L 30 150000 COBURG RD 4.930 4.970 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 30 7400 150000 COBURG RD 4.970 6.601 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 24.0 30 6600 150000 COBURG RD 6.601 6.870 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 30 6150 150000 COBURG RD 6.870 7.000 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 24.0 36 7150 150000 COBURG RD 7.000 7.366 Urban Minor Arterial L 95 44 6200 150000 COBURG RD 7.366 7.416 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 80 30 3500

150000 COBURG RD 7.416 8.784 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

80 30 2500

150000 COBURG RD 8.784 12.883 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

75 28 1650

161000 COBURG RD NO 0.000 0.218 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

89 30 2550

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-17

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

161000 COBURG RD NO 0.218 1.820 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

89 20.8 30 2050

161000 COBURG RD NO 1.820 4.115 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

88 27.8 26 1550

104000 COLE WAY 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 100 17.0 32 104070 COLE WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 98 32 162800 COLEMAN RD 0.000 0.909 Rural Local L 83 20 420 182700 COLLEGE VIEW RD 0.000 0.443 Rural Local L 99 27.0 36 900 317100 COLLIN CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 60 15.0 18 330600 COLUMBINE ST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 90 9.5 32 325700 COMMODORE ST 0.000 0.083 Urban Local L 92 15.0 28 313600 COMPTON LN 0.000 0.250 Rural Local L 19 507800 CONDON CR RD 0.000 0.912 Rural Local L 60 11.5 20 70 272100 CONIFER CT 0.000 0.383 Rural Local R 76 24.0 24 192700 CONLEY RD 0.000 0.664 Rural Local L 79 18 110 403900 CONRAD RD 0.000 0.296 Rural Local L 86 8.5 18 450 435400 COOK RD 0.000 1.547 Rural Local R 83 6.3 18 120 167100 COOK'S GARDEN RD 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 89 5.3 16 222300 COOPER AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 66 10.3 18 132800 COPPING ST 0.000 0.340 Urban Local L 93 15.0 32 310 355200 CORAL ST 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 85 9.0 26 131800 CORLISS LN 0.000 0.185 Urban Local L 95 36 750 140800 CORNWALL AVE 0.000 0.286 Urban Local L 89 11.0 26 1550 140850 CORNWALL AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 88 26 140890 CORNWALL AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 88 26 316400 CORONA ST 0.000 0.141 Urban Local L 89 18.0 28 80 316430 CORONA ST CUL 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 90 28 155400 CORRAL CT 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 93 11.8 28 155200 CORRAL DR 0.000 0.175 Urban Local L 92 9.0 28 380 382000 CORY RD 0.000 1.678 Rural Local L 89 5.0 22 170 263500 COTTAGE GROVE

CEMETERY RD 0.000 0.210 Urban Local

L 98 11.5 20 110

273000 COTTAGE GROVE RES RD 0.000 4.583 Rural Minor Collector R 80 20.8 24 650 260000 COTTAGE GROVE-LORANE 0.820 1.174 Urban Major Collector L 89 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-18

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

RD 260000 COTTAGE GROVE-LORANE

RD 1.174 4.980 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 89 19.2 30 2250

260000 COTTAGE GROVE-LORANE RD

4.980 12.654 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M

77 26 600

150100 COTTONWOOD AVE 0.000 0.263 Urban Local L 73 16.0 26 380 150105 COTTONWOOD AVE (Y) 0.000 0.014 Urban Local L 98 18 409100 COUGAR LN 0.000 0.700 Rural Local L 63 24 271100 COUGAR MT LN 0.000 0.300 Rural Local R 96 6.3 20 158800 COUNTY FARM RD 0.000 0.700 Urban Local L 83 30 2950 158800 COUNTY FARM RD 0.700 1.152 Urban Local L 84 24 800 158805 COUNTY FARM RD (Y) 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 80 30 381000 COX BUTTE RD 0.000 3.467 Rural Local L 83 7.8 20 220 408400 COYOTE CR RD 0.000 0.400 Rural Local L 22 408400 COYOTE CR RD 0.400 0.508 Rural Local L 92 15.0 22 160 125200 CREST DR 0.000 0.360 Urban Major Collector R 96 22 800 125200 CREST DR 0.360 0.623 Urban Major Collector R 97 22 1350 125200 CREST DR 0.623 0.873 Urban Major Collector R 97 22 1300 157500 CRIMSON AVE 0.000 0.067 Urban Local L 98 12.0 32 319900 CROCKER RD 0.000 0.580 Urban Minor Collector L 95 15.0 30 750 151700 CROSBY AVE 0.000 0.052 Urban Local L 92 8.0 20 165500 CROSS ROADS LN EAST 0.000 0.905 Rural Local L 74 20 70 165000 CROSS ROADS LN WEST 0.000 1.027 Rural Local L 83 20 150 165000 CROSS ROADS LN WEST 1.027 1.045 Rural Local L 18 165000 CROSS ROADS LN WEST 1.045 1.225 Rural Local L 10 427700 CROSSLEY LN 0.000 0.300 Rural Local L 68 24 427700 CROSSLEY LN 0.300 0.354 Rural Local L 87 24 423410 CROW RD 0.000 0.658 Rural Local L 95 24 270 423400 CROW RD 0.658 0.820 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 87 34 2600

423400 CROW RD 0.820 1.549 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

84 20.8 30

423400 CROW RD 1.549 2.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

84 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-19

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

423400 CROW RD 2.000 3.338 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

86 30 1850

423400 CROW RD 3.338 5.332 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

89 28.8 30 1450

423400 CROW RD 5.332 7.837 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

90 24.0 30 1250

423400 CROW RD 7.837 8.627 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

92 30 1300

252500 CURRIN BLVD 0.000 0.277 Urban Local L 84 10.5 16 160 252400 CURRIN CONN 0.000 0.071 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 17.0 22 2000 140100 CUSTER CT 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 97 9.0 20 149700 CYPRESS CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 88 26 186300 D ST 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 56 6.5 22 320000 DAFFODIL CT 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 95 11.0 26 322100 DAHLIA LN 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 94 11.0 32 323100 DAHLIA LN 0.000 0.330 Urban Local L 95 17.0 28 140 329100 DAHLIA LN 0.000 0.142 Urban Local L 94 10.0 26 323110 DAHLIA LN CUL 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 92 32 323120 DAHLIA LN CUL 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 93 32 523300 DAHLIN RD 0.000 0.260 Rural Local L 100 5.0 16 158900 DALE AVE 0.000 0.195 Urban Local L 96 11.5 36 1400 211000 DALE KUNI RD 0.000 1.430 Rural Minor Collector L 89 19.8 24 460 386100 DALEWOOD DR 0.000 0.286 Rural Local L 86 22 328100 DALEWOOD ST 0.000 0.143 Urban Local L 96 8.0 26 137100 DALTON DR 0.000 0.085 Urban Local L 92 14.0 28 328700 DALTON DR 0.000 0.121 Urban Local L 96 11.0 25 311300 DANE LN 0.000 1.318 Rural Local L 64 8.6 22 650 602000 DANSTROM RD 0.000 0.135 Rural Minor Collector L 80 10.5 20 210 602000 DANSTROM RD 0.135 0.150 Rural Local L 80 20 602000 DANSTROM RD 0.150 0.527 Rural Local L 85 20 120 214000 DANVILLE RD 0.000 0.525 Rural Local L 77 13.5 24 157900 DAPHNE ST 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 96 11.0 26 164200 DARAY ST 0.000 0.012 Urban Local L 75 36 164200 DARAY ST 0.012 0.050 Urban Local L 75 36

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-20

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

534300 DARLINGS LP 0.000 0.500 Urban Local L 89 12.3 20 260 216000 DAVISSON RD 0.000 3.729 Rural Local L 77 22 600 615700 DEAD MOUNTAIN RD 0.000 0.282 Rural Local L 6.0 15 152900 DEADMOND'S FERRY RD 0.000 0.714 Urban Local L ~75 20 1250 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 0.000 1.380 Rural Minor Collector M 77 18.0 24 330 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 1.380 4.155 Rural Minor Collector M 99 24 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 4.155 5.410 Rural Minor Collector M 95 21.3 24 230 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 5.410 7.180 Rural Minor Collector M 81 9.5 20 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 7.180 7.300 Rural Minor Collector M 83 24 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 7.300 8.507 Rural Minor Collector M 15 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 8.507 8.968 Rural Minor Collector M 20 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 8.968 9.989 Rural Minor Collector M 9.0 15 50 514000 DEADWOOD CR RD 9.989 11.723 Rural Minor Collector M 3.0 14 20 514500 DEADWOOD LP RD 0.000 0.730 Rural Local L 5.0 18 10 317300 DEAN AVE 0.000 0.430 Urban Local L 97 11.0 28 650 317300 DEAN AVE 0.430 0.700 Urban Local L 88 16.0 16 317350 DEAN AVE CUL 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 92 33 317370 DEAN AVE CUL 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 98 32 217800 DEBERRY RD 0.000 2.150 Rural Local M 79 15.5 20 550 217800 DEBERRY RD 2.150 2.775 Rural Local R 11 153100 DEBRA DR 0.000 0.162 Urban Local L 100 22.0 36 270 184900 DEBRA DR SO 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 96 11.0 26 750 105800 DEERHORN RD 0.000 3.680 Rural Minor Collector M 77 14.8 22 1350 105800 DEERHORN RD 3.680 7.206 Rural Minor Collector M 85 10.1 20 550 105800 DEERHORN RD 7.206 7.760 Rural Local L 85 20 210 106100 DEERHORN RD CUL 0.000 0.025 Rural Local R 11 20 188800 DEERWOOD DR 0.000 1.168 Rural Local M 88 22 100 187700 DEL MONTE AVE 0.000 0.213 Rural Local L 100 28 187600 DEL RIO ST 0.000 0.096 Rural Local L 100 34 220300 DELIGHT VALLEY SCH RD (N) 0.000 1.108 Rural Local L 97 13.5 22 850 220400 DELIGHT VALLEY SCH RD (S) 0.000 0.724 Rural Local L 98 16.5 22 360 180400 DELROSE AVE 0.000 0.240 Urban Local L 100 10.0 36 260 180450 DELROSE AVE CUL 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 100 32 154400 DELROSE AVE EAST 0.000 0.078 Urban Local L 100 9.0 32

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-21

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

153700 DELROSE DR 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 100 20.0 36 174000 DELTA HWY SO 0.000 1.804 Urban Principal Arterial L 75 84 32900 174005 DELTA HWY SO NE RAMP

#11 0.000 0.195 Urban Principal Arterial

L 99 42 10200

174006 DELTA HWY SO NWW RAMP #20

0.000 0.204 Urban Principal Arterial L

86 42 4150

174004 DELTA HWY SO SE RAMP #40

0.000 0.183 Urban Principal Arterial L

99 26 3400

174003 DELTA HWY SO SW RAMP #31

0.000 0.245 Urban Principal Arterial L

100 26 18850

132300 DELTA ST 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 84 11.5 32 400800 DEMMING RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Minor Collector R 65 9.0 20 1050 400800 DEMMING RD 1.000 1.120 Rural Minor Collector R 71 22 650 400800 DEMMING RD 1.120 1.136 Rural Minor Collector R 56 20 400800 DEMMING RD 1.136 1.160 Rural Local L 56 20 400800 DEMMING RD 1.160 1.957 Rural Local L 68 20 650 605700 DERY RD 0.000 0.245 Rural Local L 97 9.5 20 161200 DEVON AVE 0.000 0.066 Urban Local L 97 28 611400 DEXTER RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Major Collector L 74 23.0 24 1300 611400 DEXTER RD 1.500 2.146 Rural Major Collector L 69 30 900 611405 DEXTER RD (Y) 0.000 0.097 Rural Major Collector L 68 16 611500 DEXTER RD CONN 0.000 0.023 Rural Local L 87 20 104500 DIAMOND ST 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 88 36 104900 DIAMOND ST 0.000 0.056 Urban Local L 86 17.0 36 183800 DIAMOND ST 0.000 0.119 Urban Local L 98 13.0 28 183880 DIAMOND ST CUL 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 97 28 325900 DIBBLEE LN 0.000 0.210 Urban Major Collector L 90 4.8 22 340 188500 DILLARD ACCESS RD 0.000 0.874 Rural Local L 62 22 390 186900 DILLARD LP 0.000 0.447 Rural Local L 85 20 80 187000 DILLARD RD 0.000 3.850 Rural Minor Collector R 85 17.5 22 1000 187000 DILLARD RD 3.850 4.016 Rural Minor Collector R 85 22 189000 DILLEY LN 0.000 0.557 Rural Local L 87 22 370 130700 DIVISION PL 0.000 0.068 Urban Local L 65 20 103800 DIXIE DR 0.000 0.154 Urban Local L 85 16.0 32 170

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-22

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

408800 DOANE RD 0.000 3.117 Rural Local R 78 13.1 22 240 352000 DODSON CT 0.000 0.076 Rural Local L 83 22 175600 DON JUAN AVE 0.000 0.066 Urban Local L 96 11.0 36 101600 DONDEA ST 0.000 0.210 Urban Local L 100 14.0 36 460 101620 DONDEA ST (CUL) 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 101640 DONDEA ST (CUL) 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 100 14.0 32 101660 DONDEA ST (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 100 32 328500 DONEGAL ST 0.000 0.222 Urban Local L 93 13.0 36 230 328560 DONEGAL ST CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 90 32 195800 DONNA RD 0.000 1.527 Rural Local L 77 22 550 195895 DONNA RD (Y) 0.000 0.067 Rural Local L 97 14 361200 DORSEY LN 0.000 1.542 Rural Minor Collector L 90 16.4 22 1100 327300 DOVER DR 0.000 0.202 Urban Local L 94 11.0 26 100 327360 DOVER DR CUL 0.000 0.047 Urban Local L 94 28 106300 DOWDY LN 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 89 12.0 20 163800 DOWNING ST 0.000 0.134 Urban Local L 95 36 163850 DOWNING ST (CUL) 0.000 0.041 Urban Local L 91 28 316200 DOYLE ST 0.000 0.141 Urban Local L 92 19.0 28 100 316240 DOYLE ST CUL 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 85 32 318900 DUBLIN AVE 0.000 0.249 Urban Local L 91 12.0 28 225400 DUGAN LN 0.000 0.893 Rural Local L 78 9.5 20 180 188300 DUKE ST 0.000 0.117 Urban Local L 100 14.0 36 425100 DUKHOBAR RD 0.000 0.080 Rural Local R 50 14.0 20 90 425100 DUKHOBAR RD 0.080 0.830 Rural Local R 16 40 425100 DUKHOBAR RD 0.830 0.835 Rural Local L 66 20 425100 DUKHOBAR RD 0.835 1.435 Rural Local L 66 20 100 153600 DUMAS DR 0.000 0.242 Urban Local L 100 18.0 32 230 153620 DUMAS DR (CUL) 0.000 0.019 Urban Local L 100 71 153680 DUMAS DR (CUL) 0.000 0.046 Urban Local L 100 32 503700 DUNCAN ISLAND RD 0.000 1.023 Rural Local L 18.0 13 40 617200 DUNNING RD 0.000 0.256 Rural Local R 86 18 617200 DUNNING RD 0.256 1.608 Rural Local R 86 16.5 18 120 327800 DURHAM AVE 0.000 0.345 Urban Local L 91 18.0 33 110700 EAGLE ROCK DR 0.000 0.110 Rural Local M 92 10.0 24

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-23

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

110100 EAGLE ROCK PL 0.000 0.245 Rural Local R 92 10.0 24 190200 EAGLES AERIE RD 0.000 0.220 Rural Local R 86 10.5 24 105400 EAST CEDAR FLAT RD 0.000 0.390 Rural Local L 53 8.0 18 220 105400 EAST CEDAR FLAT RD 0.390 0.594 Rural Local R 49 14 503000 EAST MAPLETON RD 0.000 0.317 Rural Minor Collector L 81 30 1000 503000 EAST MAPLETON RD 0.317 1.000 Rural Minor Collector M 77 13.0 22 390 503000 EAST MAPLETON RD 1.000 3.950 Rural Minor Collector M 74 11.5 22 503000 EAST MAPLETON RD 3.950 5.132 Rural Minor Collector M 70 18 106800 EASTON LN 0.000 0.137 Rural Local L 94 12.8 18 70 408500 EASY ACRES DR 0.000 1.196 Rural Local R 81 12.0 24 110 606800 EDENVALE RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Minor Collector R 76 4.5 18 550 606800 EDENVALE RD 1.000 2.000 Rural Minor Collector R 81 8.5 22 606800 EDENVALE RD 2.000 3.273 Rural Minor Collector L 94 9.9 24 800 194700 EDGEHILL RD 0.000 0.118 Rural Local R 77 22 371400 EDGEWATER DR 0.000 0.656 Rural Local L 94 14.0 22 330 184400 EL BONITA PL 0.000 0.056 Urban Local L 98 12.0 28 188900 EL CAMINO ST 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 100 32 188700 EL CENTRO AVE 0.000 0.124 Rural Local L 100 32 187900 EL MANOR AVE 0.000 0.169 Rural Local L 100 36 187800 EL ROBLE AVE 0.000 0.207 Rural Local L 100 28 189800 ELDON SCHAFER DR 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 57 15.5 42 1500 189800 ELDON SCHAFER DR 0.080 0.171 Rural Local L 89 26 172300 ELIZABETH AVE 0.000 0.196 Rural Local L 20 110600 ELK CR RD 0.000 0.378 Rural Local R 97 16.3 16 100 137200 ELKAY DR 0.000 0.888 Urban Local L 92 11.6 26 1100 429800 ELLMAKER RD 0.000 1.114 Rural Minor Collector L 100 15.8 28 2000 136100 ELM DR 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 85 17.5 24 230 136300 ELM DR 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 94 18.5 28 200 138400 EMERALD PARK DRIVE 0.000 0.115 Urban Local L 93 28 429700 ENGLAND LP 0.000 0.370 Rural Local L 99 15.0 24 219700 ENGLAND RD 0.000 0.590 Rural Local M 59 9.8 20 130 343500 ENID RD EAST 0.000 0.912 Urban Minor Collector L 61 18.0 26 3000 343200 ENID RD WEST 0.228 0.403 Urban Local L 87 21.0 24 430 607500 ENTERPRISE RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Minor Collector L 91 7.0 32 1350

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-24

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

607500 ENTERPRISE RD 0.500 1.050 Rural Minor Collector L 91 2.3 36 1250 607500 ENTERPRISE RD 1.050 2.000 Rural Minor Collector R 83 16.5 25 850 607500 ENTERPRISE RD 2.000 2.960 Rural Minor Collector R 82 12.5 22 607500 ENTERPRISE RD 2.960 4.883 Rural Minor Collector L 78 10.0 20 460 406700 ERDMAN WAY 0.000 0.258 Rural Local L 75 24 80 426000 ERICKSON RD 0.000 1.540 Rural Minor Collector R 74 24 360 426000 ERICKSON RD 1.540 1.664 Rural Minor Collector R 45 22 330 194000 ERMI BEE RD 0.000 0.363 Rural Local R 81 22 130 130900 ESCALANTE ST 0.000 0.164 Urban Local L 84 10.2 26 130950 ESCALANTE ST 0.164 0.249 Urban Local L 94 26 156100 ESTATE CT 0.000 0.037 Urban Local L 93 13.0 26 141100 EVERGREEN DR 0.000 0.312 Urban Local L 91 7.0 18 320 144300 EVERGREEN DR 0.000 0.086 Urban Local L 91 10.0 22 144400 EVERGREEN DR 0.000 0.015 Urban Local L 90 10.5 28 432600 EVERS RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 86 22 260 432600 EVERS RD 0.500 0.939 Rural Local L 84 13.0 22 210 327100 EXETER AVE 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 85 13.0 25 150900 FAIRVIEW DR 0.000 0.177 Urban Local L 98 10.0 28 230 137300 FAIRWAY DR 0.000 0.141 Urban Local L 98 12.7 22 250 401300 FALCON DR 0.000 0.226 Rural Local L 89 26 529500 FALCON ST 0.000 0.132 Urban Local R 75 3.8 16 432000 FAULHABER RD 0.000 0.521 Rural Local L 72 22 190 122900 FAWN HILLS DR 0.000 0.355 Rural Local L 90 21 40 105200 FAWN WAY 0.000 0.153 Rural Local L 61 10.5 12 403800 FAWVER DR 0.000 0.104 Rural Local L 78 13.0 22 50 324100 FAYETTE AVE 0.000 0.178 Urban Local L 95 13.0 32 343300 FEDERAL LN 0.000 0.173 Urban Local L 80 20 326500 FEDERAL LN 0.030 0.273 Urban Local L 87 3.4 18 700 350800 FERGUESON RD 0.000 3.420 Rural Minor Collector L 97 29.0 24 600 350800 FERGUESON RD 3.420 6.320 Rural Minor Collector R 96 18.7 26 650 350800 FERGUESON RD 6.320 8.150 Rural Minor Collector L 68 9.2 22 350800 FERGUESON RD 8.150 9.260 Rural Minor Collector L 68 10.5 18 350800 FERGUESON RD 9.260 10.700 Rural Minor Collector R 4.5 15 255400 FERN AVE 0.000 0.111 Rural Local L 79 7.0 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-25

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

325400 FERNDALE DR 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 97 30 1150 325400 FERNDALE DR 0.060 0.648 Urban Local L 93 10.0 20 1250 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 83 20 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 0.140 1.766 Rural Local L 4.0 14 50 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 1.766 1.787 Rural Local L 98 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 1.787 1.826 Rural Local L 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 1.826 1.850 Rural Local L 98 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 1.850 3.787 Rural Local L 10.0 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 3.787 3.805 Rural Local L 100 14 533600 FIDDLE CR RD 3.805 4.784 Rural Local L 14 432800 FIELDS RD 0.000 0.383 Rural Local L 82 7.8 22 611300 FIR AVE 0.000 0.048 Rural Local L 80 10.0 20 427300 FIR BUTTE RD 0.000 2.706 Rural Minor Collector R 64 22 800 401200 FIR GROVE LN 0.000 0.272 Rural Local L 87 11.5 24 500 198900 FIR RIDGE RD 0.000 0.121 Rural Local R 80 14.0 22 433100 FIR ST 0.000 0.200 Rural Local L 95 20 427600 FIR VIEW ST 0.000 0.044 Rural Local L 73 19 50 276500 FIRE CLAY RD 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 91 16 276500 FIRE CLAY RD 0.140 2.144 Rural Local M 10.0 19 10 439300 FIRE RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Local R 82 9.0 18 60 439300 FIRE RD 1.000 1.383 Rural Local R 82 6.3 16 191500 FIRTH AVE 0.000 0.156 Urban Local L 83 13.5 36 617000 FISH HATCHERY RD 0.000 1.650 Urban Local L 77 25.9 26 500 428600 FISHER RD 0.000 1.120 Rural Minor Collector R 69 30 2800 428600 FISHER RD 1.120 1.200 Rural Minor Collector R 69 22 2850 435600 FISK RD 0.000 0.692 Rural Local R 86 5.5 18 140 514100 FIVE RIVERS RD 0.000 1.620 Rural Local R 75 20 514100 FIVE RIVERS RD 1.620 5.700 Rural Local R 75 12.3 20 180 160000 FLAMINGO AVE 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 94 24 390 160000 FLAMINGO AVE 0.076 0.259 Urban Local L 93 8.0 22 607900 FLAT HEAD RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 96 16 607900 FLAT HEAD RD 0.050 0.316 Rural Local L 10 407400 FLECK RD 0.000 2.512 Rural Minor Collector L 87 13.5 25 700 183000 FLORAL HILL DR 0.400 0.740 Urban Local L 98 18 380

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-26

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

213100 FLORENCE AVE 0.000 0.720 Rural Local L 82 20 160 415400 FLORENCE RD 0.000 0.790 Rural Local L 95 10.0 22 120 105500 FLOWERDALE DR 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 73 5.5 24 402500 FOREST VIEW DR 0.000 0.384 Rural Local R 5.5 16 529600 FOULWEATHER ST 0.000 0.068 Urban Local R 76 11.8 16 80 402000 FOUNTAIN RD 0.000 0.272 Rural Local L 84 10.3 20 90 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 0.000 4.511 Rural Minor Collector R 79 24 240 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 4.511 6.100 Rural Minor Collector R 60 24 400 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 6.100 6.442 Rural Minor Collector R 80 30 950 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 6.442 8.922 Rural Major Collector R 80 30 440 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 8.922 8.932 Rural Major Collector R 80 30 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 8.932 8.954 Rural Major Collector R 81 30 650 128000 FOX HOLLOW RD 8.954 9.329 Rural Major Collector R 81 30 330800 FOXGLOVE AVE 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 95 12.0 28 188200 FRANK PARRISH RD 0.000 0.943 Rural Local L 6.0 16 130 182500 FRANKLIN BLVD EAST 0.000 1.121 Urban Major Collector L 100 26.8 28 4800 383600 FRANKLIN RD 0.000 2.522 Rural Minor Collector R 90 16.0 22 500 383000 FRANKLIN SCHOOL RD 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 12 23 135100 FREMONT AVE 0.000 0.295 Urban Local L 51 19.7 26 320 189100 FREMONT AVE 0.000 0.219 Rural Local L 69 20 140 163300 FUNKE RD 0.000 0.900 Rural Local L 73 21 250 315500 FUTURA ST 0.000 0.098 Urban Local L 92 12.0 36 50 171000 GAME FARM RD NO 0.610 1.690 Urban Major Collector L 80 24 7550 152800 GAME FARM RD SO 0.000 0.910 Urban Major Collector L 76 24 10150 152800 GAME FARM RD SO 0.910 0.917 Urban Major Collector L 76 39 152800 GAME FARM RD SO 0.917 1.110 Urban Local L 39 2850 152800 GAME FARM RD SO 1.110 1.458 Urban Local L 22 2650 171600 GAME FARM RD WEST 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 16 7450 189200 GARDEN VALLEY RD 0.000 0.130 Rural Local L 99 12.5 30 100 328300 GARDENIA PL 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 89 28 322800 GARDENIA WAY 0.000 0.204 Urban Local L 80 8.0 28 255500 GAROUTTE RD 0.000 2.507 Rural Minor Collector R 70 12.2 20 300 109700 GATE CR RD NO 0.000 2.417 Rural Minor Collector M 84 19.0 22 330 109600 GATE CR RD SO 0.000 0.172 Rural Local L 55 11.5 20 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-27

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

607600 GAUPP LN 0.000 0.283 Rural Local L 91 7.0 16 427400 GENTRY ST 0.000 0.273 Rural Local L 93 19 130 386400 GEORGETOWN RD 0.000 0.274 Rural Local L 88 22 100 425600 GIBRALTER LP 0.000 0.592 Rural Local M 51 22 130 217700 GIBSON LN 0.000 0.747 Rural Local L 0 7.8 20 130 157100 GILHAM RD 1.673 2.178 Urban Local L 97 15.0 22 900 157130 GILHAM RD CUL #1 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 97 32 157140 GILHAM RD CUL #2 0.000 0.048 Urban Local L 98 30 157160 GILHAM RD CUL #3 0.000 0.048 Urban Local L 98 30 157180 GILHAM RD CUL #4 0.000 0.048 Urban Local L 98 30 244500 GILLISPIE RD 0.000 0.215 Rural Local R 67 9.0 20 40 122000 GIMPL HILL RD 0.000 0.576 Rural Minor Collector R 76 26 1400 122000 GIMPL HILL RD 0.576 1.131 Rural Minor Collector R 76 26 122000 GIMPL HILL RD 1.131 3.279 Rural Minor Collector R 76 26 122000 GIMPL HILL RD 3.279 4.808 Rural Minor Collector R 75 18.8 29 490 121600 GIMPL WAY 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 82 14 121605 GIMPL WAY (Y) 0.000 0.034 Rural Local L 94 22 320200 GINGER AVE 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 97 16.0 32 322700 GINKGO WAY 0.000 0.152 Urban Local L 96 19.0 32 270200 GLAISYER HILL RD 0.000 0.578 Rural Local L 72 12.0 24 529000 GLENADA RD 0.000 0.370 Rural Local R 61 30.5 24 750 529000 GLENADA RD 0.370 1.073 Rural Local R 70 4.5 20 529400 GLENADA RD EAST 0.000 0.160 Rural Local R 80 11.3 20 90 120100 GLENFIDDICH WAY 0.000 0.206 Rural Local L 18 531100 GLORIA GAYLE WAY 0.000 0.349 Urban Local L 87 13.0 22 531120 GLORIA GAYLE WAY CUL 0.000 0.094 Urban Local L 89 20 195100 GOATS RD 0.000 0.810 Rural Local L 76 16 150 428200 GOBLE LN 0.000 0.120 Rural Local R 15 60 428200 GOBLE LN 0.120 0.250 Rural Local R 15 222400 GODDARD LN 0.000 0.720 Rural Local L 73 10.0 22 140 363600 GOLDSON RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Minor Collector R 76 20 340 363600 GOLDSON RD 0.500 1.556 Rural Minor Collector R 77 20 220 328800 GOLF COURSE RD 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 88 16.0 24 185400 GONYEA RD 0.000 0.595 Rural Major Collector L 89 22.2 58 1700

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-28

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

185401 GONYEA RD NE RAMP #11 0.000 0.155 Urban Minor Arterial R 95 26 2050 185402 GONYEA RD SE RAMP #40 0.000 0.183 Urban Minor Arterial R 86 26 1400 372000 GOODMAN RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 59 20 800 372000 GOODMAN RD 0.500 1.030 Rural Local L 92 20 260 174201 GOODPASTURE IS RD E NE

#10 0.000 0.190 Urban Principal Arterial

L 91 26 6150

174401 GOODPASTURE IS RD SWW #30

0.000 0.323 Urban Principal Arterial L

87 26 4000

109400 GOODPASTURE RD 0.060 3.000 Rural Minor Collector M 78 31.0 22 550 109400 GOODPASTURE RD 3.000 5.030 Rural Minor Collector M 75 25.0 24 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 0.000 0.183 Rural Minor Collector R 71 20 750 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 0.183 1.890 Rural Minor Collector R 71 17.0 20 550 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 1.890 2.286 Rural Minor Collector R 20 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 2.286 2.314 Rural Minor Collector R 20 264500 GOWDYVILLE RD 2.314 9.034 Rural Minor Collector M 20 50 527500 GRAND AVE 0.000 0.227 Rural Local L 98 13.3 16 106500 GRANDVIEW DR 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 89 11.0 22 407900 GRAY RD 0.000 0.190 Rural Local L 81 4.3 22 50 407900 GRAY RD 0.190 0.246 Rural Local L 96 20 272500 GREEN ACRES LP 0.000 0.411 Rural Local L 82 11.0 22 427000 GREEN HILL RD 0.000 0.982 Rural Major Collector M 81 13.0 22 427000 GREEN HILL RD 0.982 1.358 Rural Major Collector L 81 22 270 427000 GREEN HILL RD 1.358 1.542 Rural Major Collector L 77 36 2950 427000 GREEN HILL RD 1.542 2.818 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 27.5 26 2950 427000 GREEN HILL RD 2.818 3.820 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 35.0 26 3850 427000 GREEN HILL RD 3.820 5.072 Rural Minor Arterial L 100 37.0 26 4200 427000 GREEN HILL RD 5.072 5.815 Rural Minor Arterial L 90 22.0 24 2600 427020 GREEN HILL RD 5.815 5.840 Rural Minor Collector L 93 24 427020 GREEN HILL RD 5.840 6.080 Rural Minor Collector L 93 44 427020 GREEN HILL RD 6.080 6.805 Rural Minor Collector L 93 24 427020 GREEN HILL RD 6.805 7.917 Rural Minor Collector L 0 24 427020 GREEN HILL RD 7.917 8.310 Rural Local L 0 30 427020 GREEN HILL RD 8.310 8.380 Rural Local L 0 30 700 427020 GREEN HILL RD 8.380 10.136 Rural Local L 87 13.0 30

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-29

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

427100 GREEN OAKS DR 0.000 0.781 Rural Local L 84 24 270 407600 GREEN RIDGE DR 0.000 0.702 Rural Local L 90 6.3 20 180 215800 GREEN VALLEY ST 0.000 0.260 Rural Local L 89 20 650 122100 GREENBRIAR DR 0.000 0.645 Rural Local L 58 22 191800 GREENBRIAR ST 0.000 0.066 Urban Local L 97 16.5 28 330700 GREENFIELD AVE 0.000 0.290 Urban Local L 95 9.5 26 1050 330700 GREENFIELD AVE 0.290 0.337 Urban Local L 86 28 700 142100 GREENLEAF AVE 0.000 0.126 Urban Local L 87 7.0 20 160 153500 GREENVALE DR 0.000 0.258 Urban Local L 74 16.0 26 120 330200 GREENWICH AVE 0.000 0.129 Urban Local L 95 10.0 30 108400 GREENWOOD DR 0.000 1.376 Rural Local L 96 14.1 22 250 217100 GREENWOOD ST 0.000 0.261 Rural Local L 89 20 250 317400 GREENWOOD ST & CUL 0.057 0.447 Urban Local L 94 13.0 36 150 317460 GREENWOOD ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 93 9.0 27 317450 GREENWOOD ST CUL 'B' 0.000 0.046 Urban Local L 93 10.0 28 133700 GREG WAY 0.000 0.271 Urban Local L 65 16.0 24 170 351000 GRIMES ROAD 0.000 0.911 Rural Local L 80 20 70 326100 GRIZZLY AVE 0.000 0.118 Urban Local L 85 19.0 30 160300 GROUSE ST 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 90 10.5 29 133100 GROVE ST 0.000 0.164 Urban Local L 94 14.7 25 1000 133100 GROVE ST 0.164 0.528 Urban Minor Collector L 81 14.0 34 1850 133100 GROVE ST 0.528 0.640 Urban Local L 88 15.0 32 1200 153400 GROVEDALE DR 0.000 0.080 Urban Local L 74 14.0 26 650 503500 HADSALL CR RD 0.000 0.715 Rural Local L 87 14.8 24 160 363100 HAGER RD 0.000 1.194 Rural Local L 72 14 80 264600 HALDERMAN RD 0.000 0.450 Rural Local L 61 15 210 424000 HALDERSON RD 0.000 1.395 Rural Local L 81 20 140 434400 HALE RD 0.000 0.167 Rural Local L 96 32 110 434400 HALE RD 0.167 0.888 Rural Local L 4.5 13 362500 HALL RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Minor Collector L 64 14.5 22 550 362500 HALL RD 1.500 1.990 Rural Minor Collector R 80 22 280 362500 HALL RD 1.990 3.820 Rural Minor Collector R 100 13.5 22 120 362500 HALL RD 3.820 4.560 Rural Minor Collector R 83 7.3 22 140 362500 HALL RD 4.560 5.880 Rural Minor Collector R 5.6 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-30

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

362500 HALL RD 5.880 6.800 Rural Minor Collector R 57 6.9 16 362500 HALL RD 6.800 7.158 Rural Minor Collector R 81 20 250 343100 HALLETT ST 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 88 22 132500 HAMILTON AVE 0.000 0.265 Urban Local L 94 20.0 32 90 213200 HAMM RD 0.000 2.000 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 48 22 450

213200 HAMM RD 2.000 3.600 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

66 22

213200 HAMM RD 3.600 4.360 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

73 22

213200 HAMM RD 4.360 5.607 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M

58 12.6 22 460

335100 HAMPSHIRE LN 0.000 0.110 Urban Local L 17.0 32 186500 HAMPTON RD 0.000 1.270 Rural Local L 79 22 650 610600 HANNA RD 0.000 0.447 Rural Local R 43 5.3 18 70 138700 HANSEN LN & KNAPP LN 0.000 0.460 Urban Local L 89 8.9 20 1150 138700 HANSEN LN & KNAPP LN 0.460 0.625 Urban Local L 88 26 100400 HARBOR DR 0.000 0.903 Urban Local L 100 18.0 36 1150 614200 HARBOR DR 0.000 0.108 Rural Local L 96 22 160 100425 HARBOR DR (CUL) 0.000 0.015 Urban Local L 100 36 100440 HARBOR DR (CUL) 0.000 0.026 Urban Local L 100 32 100450 HARBOR DR (CUL) 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 100 32 526150 HARBOR VISTA RD 0.000 0.293 Urban Local L 81 20 526100 HARBOR VISTA RD S 0.000 0.066 Urban Local L 85 5.5 20 142200 HARDY AVE 0.000 0.210 Urban Local L 93 8.0 20 142200 HARDY AVE 0.210 0.318 Urban Local L 86 24 163600 HARLOW RD 1.035 1.069 Urban Minor Arterial L 73 60 163600 HARLOW RD 1.069 1.090 Urban Minor Arterial L 73 60 163600 HARLOW RD 1.828 1.916 Urban Minor Arterial L 91 66 18250 182300 HARMON LN 0.000 0.137 Rural Local L 88 18 312500 HARPER RD 0.000 0.460 Rural Local L 85 20 150 272600 HARRIS DR 0.000 0.070 Rural Local R 88 22 272600 HARRIS DR 0.070 0.240 Rural Local R 81 11.0 22 141700 HARSHEL'S CT 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 86 24

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-31

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

153800 HARVEST LN 0.000 0.250 Urban Local L 18 7.0 18 950 153800 HARVEST LN 0.250 0.827 Rural Local L 48 13 134700 HARVEY AVE 0.000 0.137 Urban Local L 92 12.0 32 141300 HARVEY AVE 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 93 4.5 18 211400 HARVEY RD 0.000 0.260 Rural Minor Collector L 68 7.0 26 1100 211400 HARVEY RD 0.260 0.861 Rural Minor Collector L 80 3.0 26 211400 HARVEY RD 0.861 1.377 Urban Minor Collector L 80 26 2100 327400 HASTING ST 0.000 0.226 Urban Local L 95 15.0 33 420 327430 HASTING ST CUL 0.000 0.017 Urban Local L 95 70 327450 HASTING ST CUL 0.000 0.016 Urban Local L 95 70 134400 HATTON AVE 0.000 0.238 Urban Local L 90 13.0 18 90 139200 HATTON AVE 0.000 0.290 Urban Local L 90 10.5 28 600 142000 HATTON AVE 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 95 6.3 26 142400 HAWTHORNE AVE 0.000 0.115 Urban Local L 89 10.0 20 191600 HAYDEN BR CUL 0.000 0.054 Urban Local L 97 11.0 32 163700 HAYDEN BR PL 0.000 0.227 Urban Local L 28 26 450 152600 HAYDEN BR RD 0.000 1.037 Urban Major Collector L 85 26 10500 181000 HAYDEN BR RD 0.000 1.452 Urban Minor Collector L 94 20 1600 155100 HAYDEN BR RD 0.000 0.128 Urban Local L 66 15.0 15 155100 HAYDEN BR RD 0.128 0.185 Urban Local L 86 36 194300 HAYDEN BR RD CUL #2 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 100 13.0 32 163500 HAYDEN BR WAY 0.000 0.142 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 5.0 66 26550 163500 HAYDEN BR WAY 0.142 0.612 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 66 19350 163500 HAYDEN BR WAY 0.612 0.721 Urban Major Collector L 89 66 9400 312000 HAYES LN 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 89 20 200 312000 HAYES LN 0.500 1.381 Rural Local L 70 18 312000 HAYES LN 1.381 1.745 Rural Local L 70 18 268000 HAZELTON RD 0.000 0.550 Rural Local L 84 11.5 18 230 314300 HEATHER OAK DR 0.000 0.476 Rural Local L 73 20 273100 HEBRON RD 0.000 0.224 Rural Local L 63 8.8 22 80 273105 HEBRON RD (Y) 0.000 0.035 Rural Local L 88 16 525000 HECETA BEACH RD 0.000 1.885 Urban Major Collector R 99 15.5 28 2450 333200 HELEN ST 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 97 19.0 30 134500 HEMLOCK ST 0.000 0.162 Urban Local L 85 17.0 32 360

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-32

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

135700 HEMLOCK ST 0.000 0.154 Urban Local L 82 13.3 26 181500 HENDERSON AVE NO 0.000 0.391 Urban Minor Collector L 92 9.0 22 1400 181600 HENDERSON AVE SO 0.000 0.131 Urban Local L 80 22 80 106400 HENDRICKS PARK RD 0.000 0.450 Rural Local L 57 6.5 20 270 601400 HENDRICKS RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 90 14.0 20 600 601400 HENDRICKS RD 0.500 0.940 Rural Local L 87 20 550 131700 HERITAGE AVE 0.000 0.318 Urban Local L 92 10.0 28 190 520900 HERMAN CAPE ROAD 0.000 1.065 Rural Local R 94 15.0 22 162500 HERMAN RD 0.000 1.930 Rural Local L 59 20 180 310900 HERMAN ST 0.000 0.053 Urban Local L 94 15.0 32 315400 HERMAN ST 0.000 0.276 Urban Local L 92 12.5 36 100 328200 HEYWOOD AVE 0.000 0.328 Urban Local L 82 9.5 34 328290 HEYWOOD AVE CUL 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 84 32 225800 HIAWASSEE WAY 0.000 0.078 Rural Local R 100 17.0 24 149600 HICKORY CT 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 74 26 187400 HIDEAWAY HILLS BR RD 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 81 18 187200 HIDEAWAY HILLS NO 0.000 0.512 Rural Local L 71 20 80 187300 HIDEAWAY HILLS SO 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 71 20 90 187300 HIDEAWAY HILLS SO 0.500 0.990 Rural Local L 76 20 345500 HIGH PASS RD 0.000 0.859 Urban Major Collector L 88 22.0 24 3700 345500 HIGH PASS RD 0.859 1.514 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 88 22.0 24 3700

345500 HIGH PASS RD 1.514 4.080 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L

88 16.8 24 2500

345500 HIGH PASS RD 4.080 7.530 Rural Minor Collector R 90 18.1 22 950 345500 HIGH PASS RD 7.530 11.000 Rural Minor Collector M 69 8.3 20 345500 HIGH PASS RD 11.000 12.840 Rural Minor Collector M 5.7 15 345500 HIGH PASS RD 12.840 14.661 Rural Minor Collector M 12 345500 HIGH PASS RD 14.661 16.490 Rural Minor Collector M 15 345500 HIGH PASS RD 16.540 17.224 Rural Minor Collector M 87 18 100 345596 HIGH PASS RD (Y) 0.000 0.016 Rural Minor Collector L 84 18 345595 HIGH PASS RD (Y) 17.133 17.218 Rural Minor Collector L 84 21 345599 HIGH PASS RD (Y) 17.195 17.212 Rural Minor Collector L 86 18 615800 HIGH PRAIRIE LP 0.000 0.327 Rural Local L 76 9.0 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-33

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

615400 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 0.000 0.111 Urban Major Collector R 77 26 1650 615400 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 0.111 0.947 Urban Major Collector R 68 22 1500 615400 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 0.947 2.246 Rural Major Collector R 68 22 390 615400 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 2.246 6.619 Rural Major Collector R 75 22 500 315300 HILEMAN LN 0.000 0.471 Urban Local L 81 20.8 22 100 198200 HILEMAN RD 0.000 0.885 Rural Local L 80 8.3 16 130 195600 HILL RD 0.000 4.572 Rural Minor Collector R 86 22 1300 506000 HILL RD 0.000 0.210 Rural Local L 94 5.5 16 50 268400 HILL RD EAST 0.000 0.200 Rural Local R 13 268500 HILL RD NO 0.000 0.247 Rural Local R 18 20 268500 HILL RD NO 0.247 0.550 Rural Local R 14 268500 HILL RD NO 0.550 0.828 Rural Local R 18 268600 HILL RD WEST 0.000 0.369 Rural Local R 15 609800 HILL TOP DR 0.000 1.418 Rural Local L 54 11.0 24 440 428300 HILLAIRE ST 0.000 0.581 Rural Local L 78 18 90 428300 HILLAIRE ST 0.581 0.839 Rural Local R 18 428300 HILLAIRE ST 0.839 1.060 Rural Local L 77 18 136200 HILLCREST DR 0.000 0.134 Urban Local L 95 10.0 26 240 211900 HILLEGAS AVE 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 17 20 136500 HILLIARD LN WEST 0.000 0.844 Urban Local L 92 18.2 28 1300 622200 HILLS CR RD 0.000 2.410 Rural Local L 81 13.5 26 1000 622200 HILLS CR RD 2.410 6.000 Rural Local R 78 19.0 22 216500 HILLVIEW RD 0.000 1.380 Rural Local L 79 13.0 22 380 336800 HILO DR 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 97 17.0 36 614700 HINES WAY 0.000 0.093 Rural Local L 95 13.5 22 212500 HOAGLAND LN 0.000 0.092 Rural Local L 98 16.5 20 121400 HODSDONSDALE LN 0.000 0.306 Rural Local R 79 24 30 121405 HODSDONSDALE LN (Y) 0.000 0.047 Rural Local L 0 20 108000 HOLDEN CR LN 0.000 0.157 Rural Minor Collector L 86 15.0 22 900 108000 HOLDEN CR LN 0.157 1.503 Rural Local L 86 9.3 22 280 324000 HOLLYVIEW AVE 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 83 26 324000 HOLLYVIEW AVE 0.040 0.158 Urban Local L 83 7.0 26 324070 HOLLYVIEW AVE CUL 0.000 0.014 Urban Local L 87 75 197700 HONEYBEE LN 0.000 0.449 Rural Local L 85 11.5 18 400

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-34

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

320400 HONOLULU AVE 0.000 0.149 Urban Local L 97 17.0 36 270 320450 HONOLULU AVE CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 91 15.0 32 272900 HOOTON'S CORNERS RD 0.000 0.410 Rural Local L 72 19.3 20 139800 HOOVER LN NO 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 97 8.0 22 139900 HOOVER LN SO 0.000 0.069 Urban Local L 72 16.0 30 100 527600 HORIZON WAY 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 82 8.5 22 136000 HORN LN 0.000 0.928 Urban Minor Collector L 88 15.2 24 2300 403200 HORN RD 0.000 0.570 Rural Local L 74 8.3 20 410 113000 HORSE CR RD 0.000 1.387 Rural Minor Collector M 82 18.2 28 370 113000 HORSE CR RD 1.387 3.000 Rural Local L 71 8.0 26 113000 HORSE CR RD 3.000 4.260 Rural Local L 81 21.0 26 364000 HORTON RD 0.000 2.242 Rural Major Collector M 96 24 450 364000 HORTON RD 2.242 3.685 Rural Major Collector M 90 24 134200 HOWARD AVE 0.000 0.956 Urban Minor Collector L 89 12.2 30 3000 139600 HOWARD AVE EAST 0.000 0.227 Urban Local L 95 10.0 26 550 222900 HOWARD CT 0.000 0.058 Rural Local R 56 14.0 24 348200 HOWARD LN 0.000 1.426 Rural Local L 86 26 180 223000 HOWARD LP 0.000 0.594 Rural Local R 66 17.0 24 140 199500 HOWARD RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local R 77 10.3 20 230 199500 HOWARD RD 0.500 1.475 Rural Local R 85 20 217400 HOWE LN 0.000 1.230 Rural Major Collector R 88 24 600 217400 HOWE LN 1.230 3.165 Rural Major Collector R 88 22 490 615900 HUCKLEBERRY LP 0.000 0.127 Rural Local L 71 13.0 20 616100 HUCKLEBERRY RD 0.000 0.288 Rural Local L 77 11.0 22 345400 HULBERT LAKE RD 0.000 2.395 Rural Local L 60 10.0 22 110 345405 HULBERT LAKE RD (Y) 0.000 0.041 Rural Local L 85 20 271400 HULL RD 0.000 0.300 Rural Local L 92 11.0 18 40 332000 HUNSAKER LN-BEAVER ST 0.000 0.060 Urban Minor Collector L 41 38 6800 332000 HUNSAKER LN-BEAVER ST 0.060 1.141 Urban Minor Collector L 52 17.3 28 5650 606300 HUSS RD 0.000 0.098 Rural Local L 78 9.3 16 431200 HUSTON RD NO 0.060 0.230 Urban Local L 100 12.8 25 700 431200 HUSTON RD NO 0.230 0.391 Urban Local L 100 15.8 25 800 430800 HUSTON RD SO 0.272 0.524 Urban Minor Collector L 99 26 1300 430800 HUSTON RD SO 0.524 1.070 Urban Minor Collector L 99 11.5 26 550

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-35

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

334000 HYACINTH CT 0.000 0.019 Urban Local L 95 28 329800 HYACINTH ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Minor Collector L 87 20.0 32 1700 335600 HYACINTH ST 0.000 0.124 Urban Minor Collector L 81 17.0 36 335800 HYACINTH ST 0.000 0.097 Urban Minor Collector L 96 36 329800 HYACINTH ST 0.100 0.530 Urban Minor Collector L 93 36 950 329800 HYACINTH ST 0.530 0.664 Urban Minor Collector L 94 26 500 329870 HYACINTH ST CUL 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 93 78 335850 HYACINTH ST CUL 0.000 0.059 Urban Local L 96 13.0 32 213500 IDYLLWILD RD 0.000 0.433 Rural Local R 73 11.5 24 609000 IMMIGRANT RD 0.000 1.240 Rural Local L 89 11.3 24 330 513000 INDIAN CR RD 0.000 2.700 Rural Minor Collector M 98 20.0 22 170 513000 INDIAN CR RD 2.700 5.500 Rural Minor Collector M 95 26.8 22 70 513000 INDIAN CR RD 5.500 8.771 Rural Minor Collector M 91 14.5 20 513000 INDIAN CR RD 8.771 12.233 Rural Minor Collector M ~91 16.0 20 513000 INDIAN CR RD 12.233 12.316 Rural Minor Collector M 91 16 161500 INDIAN DR 0.000 0.189 Rural Local L 84 13.5 28 100500 INLAND WAY 0.000 0.368 Urban Local L 100 22.0 32 330 100550 INLAND WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 100 32 100555 INLAND WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.022 Urban Local L 100 30 100570 INLAND WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 100 32 100590 INLAND WAY (CUL) 0.000 0.031 Urban Local L 100 32 332900 IRVING CT 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 93 15.0 22 326800 IRVING RD 0.082 0.620 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 22.7 46 7650 326800 IRVING RD 0.620 1.230 Urban Minor Arterial L 91 46 7700 326800 IRVING RD 1.230 1.360 Urban Minor Arterial L 82 32 9300 326800 IRVING RD 1.360 1.380 Urban Minor Arterial L 38 326800 IRVING RD 1.380 1.500 Urban Minor Arterial L 86 22 5600 326800 IRVING RD 1.500 2.040 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 19.5 44 7750 319500 IRVINGTON DR 0.000 1.412 Urban Minor Arterial L 29 13.5 24 5600 319500 IRVINGTON DR 1.412 1.430 Urban Major Collector L 29 24 319500 IRVINGTON DR 1.430 1.479 Urban Major Collector L 74 23.5 24 3500 320600 IRVINGTON DR CUL 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 97 15.0 32 176500 ISLAND CT 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 96 12.0 24 176400 ISLAND ST 0.000 0.071 Urban Local L 96 12.0 24

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-36

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

131600 IVANHOE AVE 0.000 0.194 Urban Local L 98 10.0 28 150 131620 IVANHOE AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 92 28 133400 IVY AVE 0.000 0.276 Urban Local L 31 12.0 24 320 127400 IZAAK WALTON RD 0.000 0.513 Rural Local L 39 18 140 219800 JACKSON RD 0.000 0.405 Rural Local L 45 20 90 346000 JAEG RD 0.000 0.784 Rural Local R 80 20 90 350500 JAEGER RD 0.000 1.601 Rural Local L 98 8.0 22 110 350595 JAEGER RD (Y) 0.000 0.023 Rural Local L 100 24 176300 JANUS CT 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 98 9.0 24 176200 JANUS ST 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 97 13.5 24 331400 JASMINE ST 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 94 9.0 24 340300 JASON ST 0.000 0.068 Urban Local L 96 10.0 30 627700 JASPER PARK DR 0.000 0.825 Rural Local L 88 20 290 627500 JASPER PARK RD 0.000 1.373 Rural Local L 79 10.3 21 230 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 0.000 1.200 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 70 16.3 30 6350 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 1.200 1.600 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 53 11.0 30 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 1.600 3.874 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 72 19.0 30 4800 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 3.874 5.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 37 27.0 22 1200 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 5.000 6.118 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 77 22 1200 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 6.118 8.574 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 83 24.6 22 750 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 8.574 8.920 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 75 24.0 30 1200 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 8.920 9.500 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 74 26 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 9.500 9.835 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 70 17.3 28 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 9.835 10.399 Urban Major Collector R 70 17.3 28 2150 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 10.399 10.410 Urban Major Collector R 66 28 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 10.410 10.560 Urban Major Collector R 66 30 2650 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 10.560 10.945 Urban Major Collector R 37 20.7 34 2800 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 10.945 11.006 Urban Major Collector L 37 25.2 34 2750 622000 JASPER-LOWELL RD 11.006 11.278 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) L 37 25.2 34 2750

365400 JAY RD 0.000 0.895 Rural Local L 14 40 137800 JAYNE ST 0.000 0.057 Urban Local L 84 17.0 26 403600 JEANS RD 1.014 1.185 Urban Minor Collector L 83 22 403600 JEANS RD 1.185 3.000 Rural Minor Collector L 83 22 1000

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-37

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

403600 JEANS RD 3.000 3.590 Rural Minor Collector L 78 22 253800 JENKINS RD 0.000 0.777 Rural Local L 20 415600 JESSIE LN 0.000 0.217 Rural Local R 98 20 528600 JETTY RD NO 0.000 0.211 Urban Local L 83 20 1050 528600 JETTY RD NO 0.211 1.010 Rural Local L 100 11.3 20 318100 JILL AVE 0.000 0.033 Urban Local L 74 13.0 36 275700 JOE GEER RD 0.000 0.235 Rural Local L 61 4.5 22 40 198400 JOHNSON RD 0.000 0.928 Rural Local R 83 8.5 20 150 196800 JONES ACRES RD 0.000 0.291 Rural Local L 78 10.0 22 331500 JONQUIL AVE 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 72 14.5 26 331600 JONQUIL AVE 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 94 13.0 26 138300 JOSEPHINE ST 0.000 0.099 Urban Local L 89 22.5 28 528800 JOSHUA LN 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 80 5.3 20 528800 JOSHUA LN 0.100 0.318 Urban Local L 66 16 428700 JUDY AVE 0.000 0.284 Rural Local L 82 19 40 150600 JUNIPER LN 0.000 0.085 Urban Local L 98 13.0 24 343600 KAISER AVE 0.000 0.106 Urban Local L 85 15.0 22 329400 KALMIA ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Minor Collector L 95 17.5 28 1800 329400 KALMIA ST 0.070 0.166 Urban Local L 95 28 470 152300 KATHLEEN CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 94 20 331900 KEIPER AVE 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 95 10.5 28 167400 KELLOGG RD 0.000 0.136 Urban Local L 88 14.5 20 420 140900 KELLY LN 0.000 0.159 Urban Local L 90 10.0 22 344200 KELSO AVE 0.000 0.450 Urban Local L 76 13.0 20 226000 KENADY LN 0.000 2.187 Rural Local L 57 8.0 20 650 318200 KENDRA ST 0.000 0.188 Urban Local L 93 10.0 28 428000 KENNETH NIELSON RD 0.000 0.096 Rural Local L 69 24 120 428000 KENNETH NIELSON RD 0.096 1.140 Rural Local L 69 10.8 24 428000 KENNETH NIELSON RD 1.140 2.288 Rural Local L 22 60 605300 KENSINGTON DR 0.000 0.418 Rural Local L 86 15.0 24 280 605500 KENSINGTON DR CUL 0.000 0.044 Rural Local L 82 7.5 24 107700 KEOLA CT 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 96 11.0 22 107600 KEOLA LN 0.000 0.257 Rural Local L 95 11.0 22 193700 KICKBUSCH LN 0.000 0.872 Rural Local L 100 14.0 20 170

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-38

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

316300 KILDARE ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 93 13.0 30 316500 KILDARE ST 0.000 0.210 Urban Local L 92 15.0 28 100 316500 KILDARE ST 0.210 0.256 Urban Local L 81 28 410 316590 KILDARE ST CUL 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 95 13.5 79 316540 KILDARE ST CUL 'B' 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 93 28 610500 KIMBALL RD 0.000 0.267 Rural Local L 92 13.0 22 130 111800 KING RD EAST 0.000 1.038 Rural Minor Collector M 99 14.5 28 140 111800 KING RD EAST 1.038 3.168 Rural Minor Collector M 99 28 111800 KING RD EAST 3.168 4.012 Rural Minor Collector M 96 14.3 28 40 111600 KING RD WEST 0.000 0.008 Rural Local L 85 28 190 111600 KING RD WEST 0.008 0.044 Rural Local L 85 21 111600 KING RD WEST 0.044 0.150 Rural Local L 85 16.5 28 80 111600 KING RD WEST 0.150 1.758 Rural Local L 74 20 80 613100 KINGS WAY 0.000 0.130 Rural Local R 13 317000 KINGSBURY AVE 0.000 0.488 Urban Local L 96 18.0 36 1150 317090 KINGSBURY AVE CUL 0.000 0.058 Urban Local L 95 15.0 32 363300 KINSER LN 0.000 0.557 Rural Local L 100 20 122500 KINWOOD RD 0.000 0.123 Rural Local L 10 171200 KIRK AVE 0.000 0.071 Urban Local L 95 9.0 20 385600 KIRK RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Local L 100 20 170 385600 KIRK RD 1.000 1.872 Rural Local L 100 16 170 318300 KIRSTEN ST 0.000 0.189 Urban Local L 93 12.5 28 617800 KITSON SPRINGS RD 0.000 4.650 Rural Major Collector M 80 24 470 535500 KIWANDA ST 0.000 0.005 Urban Local L 99 28 535500 KIWANDA ST 0.005 0.115 Urban Local L 99 28 1200 535500 KIWANDA ST 0.115 0.132 Urban Local L 99 28 334400 KLAMATH CT 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 96 14.0 32 334300 KLAMATH ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 97 14.0 28 142900 KNAPP LN CUL 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 97 9.0 26 325300 KNAVE ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 97 11.0 28 324900 KNIGHT AVE 0.000 0.145 Urban Local L 97 12.0 28 433000 KNIGHT RD 0.000 1.440 Rural Minor Collector R 89 19.0 24 700 433000 KNIGHT RD 1.440 3.885 Rural Minor Collector R 91 17.5 30 500 524200 KNOLL WAY 0.000 0.244 Rural Local L 90 3.8 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-39

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

138500 KNOOP LN 0.320 0.574 Urban Local L 94 10.8 26 230 127100 KOINONIA RD 0.000 0.330 Rural Local L 62 24 50 370200 KOKKELER RD 0.000 0.861 Rural Local L 81 21.5 22 270500 KOSEY RD 0.000 0.202 Rural Local L 3.8 22 50 132000 KOURT DR 0.000 0.580 Urban Local L 86 7.0 22 700 100700 KREMONT AVE 0.000 0.074 Urban Local L 100 23.0 32 370500 KRUGUR PARK RD 0.000 0.340 Rural Local L 78 14.3 22 324700 LA DARRAH ST 0.000 0.133 Urban Local L 92 13.0 20 142500 LABONA DR 0.142 0.259 Urban Local L 57 20.5 30 1400 132200 LABONA ST 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 48 29.0 28 340 614000 LADUKE RD 0.000 2.194 Rural Local L 88 7.7 20 150 219900 LAJOIE RD 0.000 0.153 Rural Local L 51 9.8 18 535400 LAKE BLVD 0.000 0.305 Urban Local L 95 22 135200 LAKE DR 0.000 0.130 Urban Minor Collector L 59 24 2100 136900 LAKE DR 0.000 0.084 Urban Local L 94 13.0 28 135200 LAKE DR 0.130 0.430 Urban Minor Collector L 90 5.0 30 1350 429400 LAKE SIDE DR 0.000 0.112 Rural Local L 81 20 80 371300 LAKEVIEW DR 0.000 0.561 Rural Local L 96 13.5 22 480 400400 LAMB RD 0.000 1.090 Rural Local L 65 22 290 336100 LANCASTER DR 0.000 0.365 Urban Minor Collector L 75 19.0 36 2700 336170 LANCASTER DR CUL 0.000 0.047 Urban Local L 86 14.0 32 336180 LANCASTER DR CUL 0.000 0.027 Urban Local L 68 32 256000 LAND LN 0.000 0.256 Rural Local L 80 10.5 20 60 164500 LANES TURN RD 0.000 0.775 Rural Local L 80 20 90 329300 LANTANA AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 96 10.0 26 162400 LARALEE ST 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 77 13.0 32 374900 LARSLAN LN 0.000 0.237 Rural Local L 57 26 312200 LARSON LN 0.000 0.076 Rural Local L 63 8.0 16 10 415100 LARSON RD 0.000 0.582 Rural Local L 89 17.5 18 380 314600 LASSEN LN 0.000 0.650 Rural Local L 83 20 140 269900 LATHAM RD 0.000 0.965 Rural Major Collector L 79 23.5 30 1850 415300 LAUGHLIN RD 0.000 1.260 Rural Local L 86 12.0 20 300 193900 LAURA ST 0.000 0.273 Urban Major Collector L 59 20.0 22 3300 101700 LAUREL AVE 0.000 0.016 Urban Local L 100 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-40

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

535200 LAUREL AVE 0.000 0.061 Urban Local L 96 12.5 22 70 101700 LAUREL AVE 0.016 0.216 Urban Local L 100 15.0 16 440 346100 LAVELL RD 0.000 0.720 Rural Local R 78 20 346100 LAVELL RD 0.720 0.938 Rural Local R 75 16 192400 LAWNRIDGE AVE 0.000 0.234 Urban Local L 97 9.5 28 90 386200 LAWRENCE RD 0.000 0.990 Rural Major Collector R 90 30 2150 386200 LAWRENCE RD 0.990 3.847 Rural Major Collector R 88 24.2 30 1450 254200 LAYNG RD 0.000 1.424 Rural Local L 74 11.5 22 410 331100 LEA AVE 0.000 0.052 Urban Local L 95 15.0 25 108800 LEABURG DAM RD 0.100 0.370 Rural Local L 86 5.5 18 280 108800 LEABURG DAM RD 0.370 0.500 Rural Local L 92 16 108800 LEABURG DAM RD 0.500 0.700 Rural Local L 93 14 108800 LEABURG DAM RD 0.700 0.815 Rural Local L 79 12 108200 LEABURG DR 0.000 0.563 Rural Local L 99 9.8 22 160 607400 LEAFWOOD ST 0.000 0.059 Rural Local L 95 14.5 22 109500 LEASHORE DR 0.000 0.444 Rural Local L 86 18.8 22 140 109580 LEASHORE DR (CUL) 0.000 0.032 Rural Local L 60 15.0 22 109590 LEASHORE DR (CUL) 0.000 0.032 Rural Local L 58 18.0 22 254500 LEATHERS LN 0.000 0.106 Rural Local L 85 17.0 20 343900 LEDA WAY 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 2.0 16 530800 LEEWARD DR 0.000 0.192 Urban Local L 54 12.0 22 343400 LEGHORN RD 0.000 0.142 Urban Local L 78 20 326600 LENOX RD 0.000 0.064 Urban Local L 96 8.0 28 439200 LETZ CR RD 0.000 0.960 Rural Local L 83 11.0 16 100 439200 LETZ CR RD 0.960 1.286 Rural Local R 16 522200 LEVAGE DR 0.000 0.438 Rural Local L 76 4.5 18 750 183600 LEXINGTON AVE 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 96 6.0 20 328400 LEYTON LN 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 96 13.0 26 316800 LIMERICK AVE 0.000 0.158 Urban Local L 89 16.0 32 221900 LINCOLN AVE 0.198 0.301 Urban Local L 49 9.5 16 320 522900 LINDA WAY 0.000 0.128 Rural Local L 91 2.8 24 150400 LINDEN AVE 0.000 0.246 Urban Local L 92 17.0 26 210 141400 LINDNER LN 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 86 9.0 20 170 348000 LINGO LN 0.000 1.896 Rural Minor Collector L 84 12.7 28 800

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-41

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

355100 LINK DR 0.000 0.737 Urban Local L 19 8.3 19 1000 352200 LINK LN 0.000 0.507 Rural Local L 91 8.3 20 352100 LINK RIDGE DR 0.000 0.186 Rural Local L 100 12.0 22 435700 LINN LN 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 10 134000 LINWOOD AVE 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 88 9.5 26 70 135500 LINWOOD ST 0.000 0.153 Urban Local L 77 15.0 26 404100 LISOSKI LN 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 91 5.5 18 30 623000 LITTLE FALL CR RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Minor Collector M 77 13.3 24 800 623000 LITTLE FALL CR RD 1.500 3.678 Rural Minor Collector M 85 12.4 24 366600 LITTLE LAKE RD 0.000 1.050 Rural Local R 72 16 70 251900 LLOYD AVE 0.000 0.123 Urban Local L 98 9.8 20 323200 LOBELIA AVE 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 88 13.0 36 519200 LOBSTER CR RD 0.000 0.826 Rural Local R 80 19.0 22 181100 LOCH DR 0.000 0.137 Urban Local L 86 13.0 32 159200 LOCKE RD 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 82 26 159200 LOCKE RD 0.045 0.242 Urban Local L 82 27.5 26 184500 LOCUST ST 0.000 0.098 Urban Local L 91 11.0 26 340100 LODENQUAI LN 0.000 0.087 Urban Local L 97 13.0 29 149800 LODGEPOLE CT 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 89 26 402300 LOIS LN 0.000 0.484 Rural Local R 3.5 18 191300 LOMOND AVE 0.000 0.241 Urban Local L 59 15.5 36 750 191320 LOMOND AVE CUL 0.000 0.051 Urban Local L 87 32 191350 LOMOND AVE CUL 0.000 0.062 Urban Local L 88 32 191390 LOMOND AVE CUL 0.000 0.033 Urban Local L 87 32 270000 LONDON RD 0.000 3.520 Rural Major Collector

(Fed) R 100 26.0 30 3300

270000 LONDON RD 3.520 6.730 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

77 25.5 30 1350

270000 LONDON RD 6.730 8.800 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

100 25.5 30

270000 LONDON RD 8.800 12.953 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R

72 23.7 26 400

270000 LONDON RD 12.953 13.050 Rural Local L 72 26 270000 LONDON RD 13.050 14.135 Rural Local L 82 21.0 22

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-42

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

332500 LONE OAK AVE 0.000 0.110 Urban Local L 92 15.2 38 332500 LONE OAK AVE 0.110 0.182 Urban Local L 96 38 314500 LONE PINE DR 0.000 0.914 Rural Local L 69 20 280 362300 LONG TOM DR 0.000 0.281 Rural Local L 82 18 90 102300 LONGRIDGE DR 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 100 16.0 32 102400 LONGRIDGE DR 0.000 0.216 Urban Local L 100 28 350 102450 LONGRIDGE DR (CUL) 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 100 16.0 28 226300 LONGVIEW LN 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 92 22 226300 LONGVIEW LN 0.500 0.891 Rural Local L 92 24 125000 LORANE HWY 1.850 2.001 Urban Minor Arterial R 98 20 1550 125000 LORANE HWY 2.001 2.337 Urban Minor Arterial R 98 20 125000 LORANE HWY 2.337 5.500 Rural Major Collector R 85 16.8 20 1700 125000 LORANE HWY 5.500 5.916 Rural Major Collector R 88 20 1650 425000 LORANE HWY 5.916 6.013 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 91 32 2550 425000 LORANE HWY 6.013 9.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 76 32 1850 425000 LORANE HWY 9.000 10.311 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 70 32 425000 LORANE HWY 10.311 11.080 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 60 32 1100 425000 LORANE HWY 11.080 12.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 90 32 425000 LORANE HWY 12.000 13.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 89 32 425000 LORANE HWY 13.000 14.174 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 88 32 1100 439700 LORANE ORCHARD RD 0.000 0.356 Rural Local R 90 16 110 152100 LORIE CT 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 94 6.0 20 612000 LOST CR RD 0.000 0.669 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 95 20.5 28 1300 612000 LOST CR RD 0.669 1.876 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 95 28 2150 612000 LOST CR RD 1.876 4.035 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 95 24.0 28 1000 612000 LOST CR RD 4.035 5.358 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 95 28 390 612000 LOST CR RD 5.358 5.888 Rural Minor Collector R 93 28 610700 LOST VALLEY LN 0.000 1.647 Rural Local R 76 7.5 20 310 376100 LOUDEN LN 0.000 0.770 Rural Local L 89 22 311000 LOVE LAKE RD 0.000 2.000 Rural Local L 72 5.3 20 1300 311000 LOVE LAKE RD 2.000 2.821 Rural Local R 5.3 18 246500 LOWER BRICE CR RD 0.000 2.250 Rural Local L 82 4.5 18 70 246500 LOWER BRICE CR RD 2.250 3.690 Rural Local R 85 6.8 14 246505 LOWER BRICE CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.021 Rural Local L 83 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-43

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

533800 LOWER FIDDLE CR RD 0.000 1.154 Rural Local L 78 10.3 16 70 324800 LOY AVE 0.000 0.130 Urban Local L 93 9.0 22 415200 LUSK RD 0.000 0.220 Rural Local R 89 20 90 415200 LUSK RD 0.220 0.453 Rural Local R 87 16 190100 LUZKOW LN 0.000 0.183 Rural Local R 20 137600 LYNN LN 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 96 26 100 335000 LYNNBROOK DR 0.000 0.633 Urban Local L 88 18.5 34 2300 335060 LYNNBROOK DR CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 87 28 335070 LYNNBROOK DR CUL 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 75 28 335090 LYNNBROOK DR CUL 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 80 28 335010 LYNNBROOK DR CUL LP 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 83 28 335020 LYNNBROOK DR CUL LP 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 71 28 335030 LYNNBROOK DR CUL LP 0.000 0.041 Urban Local L 92 28 219200 LYNX HOLLOW RD 0.000 2.790 Rural Minor Collector R 72 24 1000 219200 LYNX HOLLOW RD 2.790 3.712 Rural Minor Collector L 68 22 219200 LYNX HOLLOW RD 3.712 3.902 Rural Local L 57 22 193500 M J CHASE RD WEST 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 69 20 210 193500 M J CHASE RD WEST 0.120 0.886 Rural Local L 57 18 106200 MADRONE ST 0.000 0.703 Rural Local L 80 12.0 22 390 332700 MAESNER ST 0.000 0.222 Urban Local L 96 13.0 28 217600 MAHR LN 0.000 0.460 Rural Local L 98 8.5 18 160 217600 MAHR LN 0.460 0.744 Rural Local L 81 17 217605 MAHR RD (Y) 0.000 0.048 Rural Local L 90 22 361800 MAIN ST 0.000 0.138 Rural Local L 98 22 361800 MAIN ST 0.204 0.300 Rural Local L 99 17 159900 MALLARD AVE 0.000 0.310 Urban Local L 96 15.3 36 950 156700 MANOR DR 0.000 0.327 Urban Local L 95 7.0 28 600 156800 MANSFIELD ST 0.000 0.247 Urban Local L 95 11.5 27 270 137400 MANZANA LN 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 96 16.0 28 134600 MANZANA ST 0.000 0.074 Urban Local L 95 13.5 32 136600 MANZANA ST 0.000 0.126 Urban Local L 80 7.5 18 532600 MAPLE CR RD 0.000 0.592 Rural Minor Collector M 73 16 90 532600 MAPLE CR RD 0.592 0.683 Rural Local R 94 9.3 16 532600 MAPLE CR RD 0.683 3.434 Rural Local R 9.0 15

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-44

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

532600 MAPLE CR RD 3.434 3.720 Rural Local R 13 144100 MAPLE DR 0.000 0.188 Urban Local L 0 32 314000 MAPLE DR 0.000 0.870 Rural Local L 94 10.3 20 200 314000 MAPLE DR 0.870 1.224 Rural Local L 95 21.0 18 314000 MAPLE DR 1.224 1.280 Rural Local L 14 328900 MARANTA ST 0.000 0.223 Urban Local L 96 13.0 28 240 328960 MARANTA ST CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 88 32 110300 MARBROOK LN 0.000 0.207 Rural Local L 68 13.5 24 190000 MARCOLA RD 1.796 1.874 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 62 46 190000 MARCOLA RD 1.874 2.100 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 62 46 9700 190000 MARCOLA RD 2.100 5.818 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 87 33.0 36 5650 190000 MARCOLA RD 5.818 11.550 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 60 30.0 24 4400 190000 MARCOLA RD 11.550 16.080 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 82 21.4 23 1900 190000 MARCOLA RD 16.080 20.645 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 86 22.5 29 1500 430400 MARINA DR 0.000 0.334 Rural Local L 61 9.5 22 410 430500 MARINA DR CUL 0.000 0.082 Rural Local L 81 9.5 22 80 136800 MARION LN 0.000 0.466 Urban Local L 93 17.0 30 500 161100 MARJORIE AVE 0.000 0.145 Urban Local L 94 28 161150 MARJORIE AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 94 28 161180 MARJORIE AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 95 28 215600 MARKET RD 0.000 0.672 Rural Local R 83 20 1600 529100 MARKET ST 0.000 0.050 Rural Local R 82 8.0 18 212700 MARLOW RD 0.000 0.260 Rural Local L 58 12.0 20 130 212700 MARLOW RD 0.260 1.477 Rural Local L 18 227000 MARTIN CR RD 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 22 19.5 18 410 227000 MARTIN CR RD 0.240 1.191 Rural Local L 67 10.5 18 212400 MARTIN RD EAST 0.000 0.049 Urban Local L 86 20 212000 MARTIN RD WEST 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 26 25.3 20 100 323300 MARVIN DR 0.000 0.220 Urban Local L 91 11.0 32 323300 MARVIN DR 0.220 0.309 Urban Local L 94 26 323350 MARVIN DR CUL 0.000 0.039 Urban Local L 95 32 611100 MATHEWS DR 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 60 10.3 16 188400 MATHEWS RD 0.000 2.309 Rural Local L 86 22 1000 319400 MAVERICK AVE 0.000 0.058 Urban Local L 92 13.0 36

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-45

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

130600 MAXWELL CONN 0.000 0.310 Urban Local L 87 42 3200 133000 MAXWELL RD 0.000 0.622 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 27.5 48 6300 133000 MAXWELL RD 0.622 1.066 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 48 7550 133000 MAXWELL RD 1.066 1.086 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 48 133000 MAXWELL RD 1.293 1.392 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 30 133000 MAXWELL RD 1.392 1.605 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 46 6650 138900 MAYFAIR LN 0.000 0.252 Urban Local L 72 11.0 20 650 141600 MAYNARD AVE 0.000 0.170 Urban Local L 0 13.0 24 180 426500 MAYOLA LN 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 91 9.8 22 426500 MAYOLA LN 0.240 0.398 Rural Local R 91 20 134100 MAYWOOD AVE 0.000 0.110 Urban Local L 94 14.0 26 120 135600 MAYWOOD ST 0.000 0.154 Urban Local L 70 13.5 26 127300 MCBETH RD 0.000 3.604 Rural Minor Collector R 69 20 750 127305 MCBETH RD (Y) 0.000 0.065 Rural Minor Collector L 80 20 521900 MCCRAE RD 0.000 0.159 Rural Local L 6.0 14 628300 MCCUMBER RD 0.000 0.462 Rural Local L 67 21 271000 MCDOLE RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 69 13.8 20 140 271000 MCDOLE RD 0.500 0.890 Rural Local L 51 18 613000 MCFARLAND RD 0.000 1.582 Rural Minor Collector R 71 14.0 22 380 613004 MCFARLAND RD (Y) 0.000 0.030 Rural Minor Collector L 68 13 613005 MCFARLAND RD (Y) 0.000 0.012 Rural Minor Collector L 72 13 613095 MCFARLAND RD (Y) 1.550 1.584 Rural Minor Collector L 51 24 196000 MCGOWAN CR RD 0.000 0.192 Rural Local L 80 22 200 111200 MCKENZIE RIVER DR 0.000 3.034 Rural Minor Collector L 72 15.8 24 230 159500 MCKENZIE VIEW DR 0.000 3.190 Rural Minor Collector R 72 22 1000 159500 MCKENZIE VIEW DR 3.190 6.099 Rural Minor Collector R 72 22 750 349000 MCMULLEN LN 0.000 1.458 Rural Local L 87 26 480 101100 MEADOW GLEN DR 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 88 10.0 24 344600 MEADOWVIEW RD EAST 0.000 1.162 Rural Minor Collector L 100 6.4 22 420 344300 MEADOWVIEW RD WEST 0.000 1.446 Rural Minor Collector L 90 16.8 24 1250 344300 MEADOWVIEW RD WEST 1.446 2.952 Rural Minor Collector L 90 18.8 24 750 322400 MECCA AVE 0.000 0.252 Urban Local L 97 17.0 26 192200 MELLOWOOD CT 0.000 0.010 Urban Local L 98 18.0 28 219500 MELODY LN 0.000 0.280 Rural Local L 72 11.5 18 180

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-46

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

141800 MELVINA WAY 0.000 0.118 Urban Local L 89 8.5 26 141800 MELVINA WAY 0.118 0.200 Urban Local L 81 7.5 20 150800 MENLO LOOP 0.000 0.300 Urban Local L 56 17.0 26 700 150805 MENLO LP (Y) 0.000 0.014 Urban Local L 44 18 523200 MERCER CR DR 0.000 0.491 Rural Local R 83 9.5 16 210 524000 MERCER LAKE RD 0.000 1.080 Rural Major Collector M 98 8.5 24 750 524000 MERCER LAKE RD 1.080 1.715 Rural Major Collector M 100 16 524000 MERCER LAKE RD 1.715 3.670 Rural Local R 100 8.5 18 523500 MERCER LAKE RD NO 0.000 0.500 Rural Local R 100 5.8 22 260 523500 MERCER LAKE RD NO 0.500 1.110 Rural Local R 100 16 524600 MERCER VIEW DR 0.000 0.477 Rural Local M 100 11.0 20 335500 MEREDITH CT 0.000 0.083 Urban Local L 84 15.0 25 142700 MERIAU LN 0.000 0.134 Urban Local L 87 11.0 18 184300 MERRYHILL CT 0.000 0.037 Urban Local L 95 17.0 26 371000 MERRYMAN RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Local L 76 20 371000 MERRYMAN RD 1.000 1.772 Rural Local L 83 20 241200 MEYER RD 0.000 2.383 Rural Local R 87 18 320 214800 MICKELSON RD 0.000 0.660 Rural Local R 90 12.7 20 112000 MILL CR RD NO 0.000 0.238 Rural Local L 95 8.5 24 40 112400 MILL CR RD SO 0.000 0.166 Rural Local L 72 6.5 24 320 218800 MILL RD 0.000 0.535 Rural Local L 87 23.5 20 140 610200 MILL RD 0.000 0.249 Rural Local L 89 13.5 20 210 106900 MILLER AVE 0.000 0.160 Rural Local L 98 12.8 20 407000 MILLER RD 0.000 0.320 Rural Local L 74 6.3 22 90 106600 MILLICAN RD 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 65 8.8 20 850 106600 MILLICAN RD 0.090 0.551 Rural Local L 69 20 600 106605 MILLICAN RD (OLD) 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 77 23 345000 MILLIRON RD EAST 0.000 0.402 Rural Local L 76 11.8 28 500 344800 MILLIRON RD WEST 0.000 1.438 Rural Local L 100 22 500 139500 MILO WAY 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 89 12.0 24 611700 MINNICK RD 0.000 0.213 Rural Local L 74 11.0 22 331700 MINT AVE 0.000 0.109 Urban Local L 94 17.0 24 183700 MISSISSIPPI AVE 0.000 0.267 Urban Local L 98 11.0 18 470 194200 MISSY LN 0.000 0.216 Rural Local L 57 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-47

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

531600 MITCHELL LP 0.000 1.045 Rural Local L 78 12.5 22 390 198600 MOHAWK LP RD 0.000 0.687 Rural Local L 86 16.8 22 40 199000 MOHAWK RIVER RD 0.000 0.500 Urban Local L 55 11.5 20 240 199000 MOHAWK RIVER RD 0.500 2.162 Urban Local L 49 12.3 20 241600 MOLITOR HILL RD 0.000 0.982 Rural Local L 78 5.0 24 241700 MOLITOR RANCH RD 0.000 0.654 Rural Local R 87 7.5 22 176800 MONTEBELLO AVE 0.000 0.187 Urban Local L 95 12.5 28 332600 MOORE ST 0.000 0.210 Urban Local L 96 9.0 28 607800 MORNINGSTAR RD NO 0.000 1.000 Rural Local L 91 9.0 20 150 607800 MORNINGSTAR RD NO 1.000 1.480 Rural Local R 84 13.0 20 608800 MORNINGSTAR RD SO 0.000 0.440 Rural Local L 81 15.0 18 170 608800 MORNINGSTAR RD SO 0.440 0.720 Rural Local R 13 212100 MORSE AVE 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 21 20 250000 MOSBY CR RD 1.204 1.597 Rural Major Collector L 86 21.5 24 250000 MOSBY CR RD 1.597 1.610 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 86 24 250000 MOSBY CR RD 1.610 1.632 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 91 26 2650 250000 MOSBY CR RD 1.632 9.657 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 91 21.1 26 1900 610800 MOUNT ZION DR 0.000 0.645 Rural Local L 90 18.0 22 615500 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD 0.000 0.834 Rural Local L 72 7.5 22 400700 MOYER ST 0.000 0.297 Rural Local L 86 20 270 104300 MT VERNON CEM RD 0.000 0.191 Urban Local L 28 10.3 18 40 104200 MT VERNON RD 0.000 0.361 Urban Major Collector R 90 20 5350 407500 MUIRLAND DR 0.000 0.330 Rural Local L 82 3.3 22 120 407500 MUIRLAND DR 0.330 0.491 Rural Local L 84 14 526000 MUNSEL LAKE RD 0.000 0.382 Urban Major Collector L 99 25 1600 526000 MUNSEL LAKE RD 0.382 0.500 Urban Major Collector L 15.5 25 526000 MUNSEL LAKE RD 0.500 0.774 Urban Major Collector L 91 25 526000 MUNSEL LAKE RD 0.774 2.090 Urban Major Collector R 91 25 1200 128200 MURDOCK RD 0.000 1.230 Rural Local L 76 6.0 20 260 330900 MYRNA AVE 0.000 0.152 Urban Local L 94 9.0 26 362600 MYRTLE ST 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 44 12 195300 NADEAU RD 0.000 0.238 Rural Local L 88 22 140700 NADINE AVE 0.000 0.190 Urban Local L 91 14.0 26 140750 NADINE AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 89 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-48

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

139400 NANTUCKET AVE 0.000 0.218 Urban Local L 89 13.0 28 480 214700 NAPPER RD 0.000 0.100 Rural Local R 84 18.5 16 10 336900 NATCHEZ CT 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 95 26 105100 NATURE'S GARDEN ST 0.000 0.240 Rural Local L 65 10.5 16 90 272800 NELLIE LN 0.000 0.389 Rural Local R 82 11.0 22 367000 NELSON MTN RD 0.000 2.860 Rural Minor Collector M 74 16 160 367000 NELSON MTN RD 2.860 4.200 Rural Minor Collector M 16 467000 NELSON MTN RD 4.200 9.890 Rural Minor Collector M 7.0 15 467000 NELSON MTN RD 9.890 11.109 Rural Minor Collector M 84 16.5 22 170 100600 NEPTUNE AVE 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 100 23.0 32 606400 NESTLE WAY 0.000 0.155 Rural Local L 97 11.3 20 334700 NEWCASTLE ST 0.000 0.264 Urban Local L 95 23.0 26 600 410300 NEWTON PL 0.000 0.090 Rural Local M 83 24 211500 NIEBLOCK LN 0.000 0.220 Urban Local L 68 22 1400 211500 NIEBLOCK LN 0.220 0.445 Urban Local L 80 22 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 0.000 0.849 Rural Major Collector L 89 26 1700 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 0.849 0.933 Rural Major Collector M 89 26 1500 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 0.933 5.700 Rural Major Collector R 86 18.6 26 320 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 5.700 11.450 Rural Major Collector M 84 15.8 26 230 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 11.450 12.500 Rural Minor Collector M 89 20 200 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 12.500 13.805 Rural Minor Collector M 76 8.9 20 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 13.805 17.412 Rural Minor Collector M 8.0 20 507000 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 17.412 17.883 Rural Minor Collector R 69 7.8 16 50 122700 NO MODESTO RD 0.000 0.870 Rural Local L 89 22 190 132900 NO PARK AVE 0.000 0.500 Urban Local L 89 30 2000 132900 NO PARK AVE 0.500 0.573 Urban Local L 89 12.0 30 132900 NO PARK AVE 0.748 0.819 Urban Local L 95 30 132900 NO PARK AVE 1.136 1.298 Urban Local L 87 30 2750 132900 NO PARK AVE 1.298 1.785 Urban Local L 65 17.2 36 1250 221000 NO RIVER RD 0.000 0.433 Rural Major Collector L 88 24 1450 348500 NORATON RD 0.000 1.856 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 80 16.3 30 360 348500 NORATON RD 1.856 2.718 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 80 12.3 30 490 133900 NORMAN AVE 0.000 0.202 Urban Local L 91 14.0 28 500 133920 NORMAN AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 94 32

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-49

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

133950 NORMAN AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.031 Urban Local L 96 32 133970 NORMAN AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.031 Urban Local L 96 32 112800 NORTH BANK RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Local L 100 12.3 24 230 112800 NORTH BANK RD 1.500 2.150 Rural Local L 100 8.5 18 173000 NORTH DELTA HWY 0.000 0.201 Urban Major Collector L 48 40 12950 522510 NORTH LN 0.000 0.036 Rural Local L 74 16 180 522500 NORTH LN 0.036 0.416 Rural Local R 76 4.0 20 530900 NORTH LOFTUS RD 0.000 0.554 Rural Local L 78 6.3 18 250 102700 NORTH ST 0.000 0.123 Urban Local L 94 20 121000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 0.104 0.170 Urban Minor Arterial L 99 40 8350 121000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 0.170 1.738 Urban Minor Arterial L 99 25.0 40 7950 121000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 2.568 3.220 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 40 10700 321000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 3.220 3.350 Urban Minor Arterial L 100 30 321000 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 3.350 4.749 Urban Minor Arterial L 99 30.0 40 12700 321800 NOTTINGHAM AVE 0.000 0.147 Urban Local L 94 11.0 28 321830 NOTTINGHAM AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 92 12.0 28 321870 NOTTINGHAM AVE CUL 'B' 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 95 13.0 28 171300 NOVA ST 0.000 0.147 Urban Local L 92 10.0 20 137000 OAK DR 0.000 0.059 Urban Local L 36 15.0 28 90 143100 OAK DR 0.000 0.116 Urban Local L 92 6.8 26 611200 OAK DR 0.000 0.224 Rural Local L 57 10.5 20 428100 OAK HILL CEMETERY RD 0.000 0.423 Rural Local L 76 20 100 423700 OAK HILL DR 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 55 9.0 20 340 423700 OAK HILL DR 0.500 0.850 Rural Local R 60 20 270 423700 OAK HILL DR 0.850 1.155 Rural Local R 16 423700 OAK HILL DR 1.155 1.200 Rural Local R 16 423700 OAK HILL DR 1.200 1.247 Rural Local R 89 24 328600 OAK LEAF DR 0.000 0.160 Urban Local L 95 12.5 26 401100 OAK LN 0.000 0.760 Rural Local L 84 22 270 193800 OAK POINT RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 95 28 193800 OAK POINT RD 0.040 0.200 Rural Local L 91 18 193800 OAK POINT RD 0.200 0.231 Rural Local L 96 30 254400 OAK RD 0.000 0.307 Rural Local L 4.0 20 50 427500 OAK VIEW AVE 0.000 0.058 Rural Local L 94 18 50

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-50

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

170800 OAKDALE AVE 0.000 0.076 Urban Local L 10.0 28 351200 OAKLEA DR 0.000 1.512 Rural Major Collector L 84 19.6 22 1200 351200 OAKLEA DR 1.512 2.534 Urban Major Collector L 84 22 1700 529900 OCEAN WAY 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 67 6.3 16 531700 OCEANA DR 0.000 0.450 Urban Local L 86 14.0 24 270 171500 OLD COBURG RD 0.000 0.473 Urban Local L 51 9.3 20 120 612400 OLD GIUSTINA MILL RD 0.000 0.353 Rural Local L 82 16.3 20 110 439600 OLD LORANE RD 0.000 0.727 Rural Local R 73 20 180 198500 OLD MARCOLA RD 0.000 0.597 Rural Local R 16 30 612900 OLD MILL RD 0.000 0.007 Urban Local L 98 13 612900 OLD MILL RD 0.007 0.048 Urban Local L 13 612900 OLD MILL RD 0.048 0.091 Urban Local L 13 194500 OLD MOHAWK RD 0.000 0.190 Rural Minor Collector L 80 30 130 194500 OLD MOHAWK RD 0.190 1.433 Rural Minor Collector L 77 30 1250 194500 OLD MOHAWK RD 1.433 1.470 Rural Local L 78 30 240 194500 OLD MOHAWK RD 1.470 3.152 Rural Local L 78 24 900 622900 OLD PENGRA RD 0.000 0.130 Rural Local R 89 20 30 622900 OLD PENGRA RD 0.130 1.641 Rural Local R 59 22 216800 ORCHARD AVE 0.000 0.676 Rural Local L 86 20 650 216805 ORCHARD AVE (Y) 0.000 0.036 Rural Local L 94 19 376000 ORCHARD RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 90 25 130 376000 ORCHARD RD 0.500 0.922 Rural Local L 82 20 230 159600 ORIOLE ST 0.000 0.266 Urban Local L 95 13.0 36 330 319100 OROYAN AVE 0.000 0.023 Urban Local L 91 36 319100 OROYAN AVE 0.023 0.067 Urban Local L 89 15.0 18 102600 OSAGE ST 0.000 0.098 Urban Local L 100 9.5 26 60 523800 OTTER WAY 0.000 0.277 Rural Local L 67 12.0 24 90 153200 OTTO ST 0.000 0.175 Urban Local L 96 13.0 28 191100 OTTO ST 0.000 0.156 Urban Local L 53 6.3 20 267500 OVERHOLSER RD 0.000 1.033 Rural Local R 62 9.0 18 130 132400 OWOSSO DR 0.000 0.382 Urban Local L 94 17.6 28 1100 327200 OXFORD CT 0.000 0.070 Urban Local L 82 12.0 28 160 535000 PACIFIC AVE 0.000 0.277 Urban Local L 92 22 190 107300 PAGE RD 0.000 0.126 Rural Local L 77 7.5 22 140

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-51

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

161700 PAIUTE LN 0.000 0.187 Rural Local L 75 28 325200 PALACE ST 0.000 0.145 Urban Local L 95 11.0 28 408600 PANTHER CR RD 0.000 2.200 Rural Local L 81 20 180 408600 PANTHER CR RD 2.200 2.242 Rural Local R 92 16 130 408600 PANTHER CR RD 2.242 5.160 Rural Local R 16 608400 PAPENFUS RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 87 12.0 18 210 608400 PAPENFUS RD 0.500 1.000 Rural Local L 86 16 608400 PAPENFUS RD 1.000 1.164 Rural Local L 85 16 402900 PARADISE DR 0.000 0.720 Rural Local L 89 11.5 22 402900 PARADISE DR 0.720 1.505 Rural Local R 15 402900 PARADISE DR 1.505 1.730 Rural Local R 18 138000 PARK AVE 0.000 0.786 Urban Major Collector L 94 13.6 26 1600 362700 PARK ST 0.000 0.183 Rural Local L 44 14 404000 PARKER LN 0.000 0.210 Rural Local L 79 7.5 18 200 527700 PARKSIDE DR 0.000 0.200 Urban Local L 73 10.0 22 131900 PARNELL DR 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 94 12.0 30 90 131900 PARNELL DR 0.100 0.185 Urban Local L 92 13.0 26 190 134300 PARNELL ST 0.000 0.126 Urban Local L 90 21.0 28 500 134300 PARNELL ST 0.126 0.197 Urban Local L 92 16.5 32 196600 PARSONS CR RD 0.000 2.356 Rural Minor Collector M 92 16.5 22 900 196600 PARSONS CR RD 2.356 3.063 Rural Minor Collector M 92 22 107500 PARTRIDGE LN 0.000 0.380 Rural Local L 77 14.0 20 120 159700 PARTRIDGE WAY 0.000 0.245 Urban Local L 89 16.5 36 612200 PARVIN RD 0.000 0.610 Rural Local R 92 20.5 22 280 612200 PARVIN RD 0.610 0.800 Rural Local L 58 20 198000 PASCHELKE RD 0.000 1.369 Rural Local L 76 19.0 24 200 198700 PAULS RD 0.000 0.483 Rural Local R 93 16.5 22 348800 PAYNE RD 0.000 0.174 Rural Local L 57 20 40 348805 PAYNE RD (Y) 0.000 0.024 Rural Local L 22 415000 PEACEFUL VALLEY RD 0.000 1.140 Rural Local L 94 24 700 163900 PEARL ST 0.000 0.390 Urban Minor Arterial L 97 26 5400 163900 PEARL ST 0.390 0.540 Urban Minor Arterial L 61 45 163900 PEARL ST 0.540 0.561 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 24 163900 PEARL ST 0.561 0.635 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 24 15400

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-52

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

313100 PEBBLE BEACH LN 0.000 0.125 Rural Local L 98 12.5 28 90 188600 PEEBLES RD EAST 0.000 0.093 Rural Local L 73 10.5 16 90 186400 PEEBLES RD WEST 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 73 10.5 16 90 622800 PENGRA CONN 0.000 0.027 Rural Local L 98 24 1250 622895 PENGRA CONN (Y) 0.000 0.018 Rural Local L 98 20 622700 PENGRA RD 0.000 4.366 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 64 40 3050 622700 PENGRA RD 4.366 4.999 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 64 40 2050 622705 PENGRA RD (FRONTAGE) 0.000 0.235 Rural Local L 88 16 625000 PENINSULA RD 0.000 0.760 Rural Local R 73 24 140 625000 PENINSULA RD 0.760 4.000 Rural Local R 20 625000 PENINSULA RD 4.000 5.140 Rural Local R 86 22 625000 PENINSULA RD 5.140 7.135 Rural Local R 22 625000 PENINSULA RD 7.135 7.622 Rural Local R 89 22 80 436600 PENN RD 0.000 0.042 Rural Local L 89 15 50 436600 PENN RD 0.042 6.608 Rural Local R 9.0 15 436600 PENN RD 6.608 6.770 Rural Local R 20 436600 PENN RD 6.770 6.794 Rural Local R 88 20 110 163100 PEPPERMINT LN 0.000 0.136 Rural Local L 81 28 80 258000 PERKINS CR RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 86 20 180 258000 PERKINS CR RD 0.500 0.850 Rural Local L 86 12.8 19 258000 PERKINS CR RD 0.850 1.470 Rural Local R 80 16 258000 PERKINS CR RD 1.470 1.600 Rural Local R 80 14 406600 PERKINS RD 0.420 0.443 Rural Minor Collector L 88 15.3 26 406600 PERKINS RD 0.443 1.110 Rural Minor Collector L 88 26 1050 406600 PERKINS RD 1.110 2.822 Rural Minor Collector L 87 13.3 26 900 426400 PETZOLD RD 0.000 2.457 Rural Minor Collector R 65 17.5 24 280 152700 PHEASANT BLVD 0.220 0.414 Urban Local L 95 15.0 42 500 152700 PHEASANT BLVD 0.414 0.483 Urban Local L 93 22 152700 PHEASANT BLVD 0.483 0.812 Urban Local L 95 9.9 24 152730 PHEASANT BLVD (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 82 28 152740 PHEASANT BLVD (CUL) 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 92 26 152750 PHEASANT BLVD (CUL) 0.000 0.031 Urban Local L 89 26 609400 PHEASANT LN 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 96 22 380 609400 PHEASANT LN 0.110 1.204 Rural Local L 89 9.5 22 340

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-53

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

429000 PICKENS RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 72 22 430 429000 PICKENS RD 0.500 1.394 Rural Local L 65 6.3 18 195400 PICO ST 0.000 0.106 Rural Local L 89 22 60 425400 PINE GROVE RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Major Collector R 87 17.5 22 550 425400 PINE GROVE RD 1.000 2.573 Rural Major Collector R 83 19.0 22 460 425400 PINE GROVE RD 2.573 2.600 Rural Local L 83 22 425400 PINE GROVE RD 2.600 2.822 Rural Local L 77 13.0 22 160 171800 PINEDALE AVE 0.000 0.099 Urban Local L 86 13.0 28 125300 PINEWOOD TER 0.000 0.088 Urban Local R 52 14 102500 PINYON ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 100 9.0 26 80 196700 PIOCH LN 0.000 0.514 Rural Local L 79 20 90 194600 PIONEER PARKWAY EAST 1.700 1.781 Urban Minor Arterial L 63 30 6650 190400 PIONEER PARKWAY WEST 0.000 0.304 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 30 6650 190400 PIONEER PARKWAY WEST 0.304 0.313 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 30 360300 PITNEY LN NO 0.000 1.380 Rural Local L 100 20 490 360300 PITNEY LN NO 1.380 1.509 Rural Local L 100 20 500 360600 PITNEY LN SO 0.000 0.493 Rural Local L 22 20 622500 PLACE RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Major Collector L 93 26 100 622500 PLACE RD 0.040 0.100 Rural Major Collector L 91 26.3 18 622500 PLACE RD 0.100 0.942 Rural Major Collector R 84 22 90 622500 PLACE RD 0.942 2.500 Rural Major Collector R 98 18.4 22 1150 622500 PLACE RD 2.500 4.490 Rural Major Collector R 98 18.4 22 1000 622520 PLACE RD (OLD) 0.000 0.121 Rural Local L 100 19 271600 PLASTER RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 24 12.3 16 20 121800 PLAYWAY RD 0.000 0.203 Rural Local L 56 18 149900 PONDEROSA CT 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 82 26 434800 POODLE CR RD 0.000 3.138 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 85 21.3 26 1150 434800 POODLE CR RD 3.138 6.771 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 85 27.5 26 900 434895 POODLE CR RD (Y) 6.752 6.771 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 83 30 364500 POPE RD 0.000 0.602 Rural Local L 95 18 100 321200 POPLAR ST 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 90 18.0 26 507600 PORTAGE WAY 0.000 0.800 Rural Local L 8.0 12 40 365200 POST RD 0.000 1.120 Rural Local L 13 70 409300 POWELL RD 0.000 0.427 Rural Local L 73 18 60

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-54

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

164000 POWER LINE RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 89 14.5 26 950 164000 POWER LINE RD 0.500 1.000 Rural Local L 85 26 164000 POWER LINE RD 1.000 2.530 Rural Local L 87 16.0 26 900 164005 POWER LINE RD (Y) 0.000 0.067 Rural Local L 93 25 347000 PRAIRIE RD 0.118 0.690 Urban Minor Arterial L 97 26.5 40 11850 347000 PRAIRIE RD 0.690 1.640 Urban Minor Arterial L 97 20.0 44 11100 347000 PRAIRIE RD 1.640 1.939 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 24 5200 347000 PRAIRIE RD 1.939 2.211 Urban Minor Arterial L 68 20.0 24 3950 347030 PRAIRIE RD 2.221 3.116 Rural Major Collector L 84 30 5350 347030 PRAIRIE RD 3.116 5.500 Rural Major Collector L 84 30 4050 347030 PRAIRIE RD 5.500 7.286 Rural Major Collector L 88 30 3300 347030 PRAIRIE RD 7.286 7.850 Rural Major Collector L 88 30 3300 347030 PRAIRIE RD 7.850 8.030 Rural Major Collector L 71 22 347080 PRAIRIE RD 8.030 8.050 Rural Major Collector L 75 22 347080 PRAIRIE RD 8.050 9.250 Rural Major Collector L 75 28.5 22 1350 350600 PRAIRIE RD CONN 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 91 38 3450 519000 PREACHER CR RD 0.000 0.496 Rural Local R 81 19.0 20 435000 PRICE RD 0.000 0.704 Rural Local L 4.0 14 20 360900 PURKERSON RD 0.000 1.517 Rural Local L 100 8.0 22 120 253500 QUAGLIA RD 0.000 0.660 Rural Local L 45 5.8 18 210 241500 QUAIL LOOP RD 0.000 0.648 Rural Local M 71 24 334100 QUIET LN 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 92 15.0 32 331200 QUINCE ST 0.000 0.072 Urban Local L 89 15.0 26 331300 QUINCE ST 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 95 15.0 26 331210 QUINCE ST CUL 0.000 0.059 Urban Local L 94 29 331350 QUINCE ST CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 92 28 612100 R R ANDERSON RD 0.000 0.034 Rural Local L 96 19 612100 R R ANDERSON RD 0.034 0.345 Rural Local L 9.0 14 270400 RACHEL RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 53 16 260 361600 RAILROAD ST 0.000 0.135 Rural Local L 98 20 122200 RAINBOW VALLEY RD 0.000 0.515 Rural Local R 16 40 122200 RAINBOW VALLEY RD 0.515 0.534 Rural Local L 86 16 123800 RAINIER DR 0.000 0.130 Urban Local L 50 22 30 607300 RAINTREE ST 0.000 0.127 Rural Local L 94 12.5 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-55

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

275000 RAISOR RD 0.000 0.994 Rural Local R 68 10.3 18 100 161800 RALEIGHWOOD AVE 0.000 0.233 Urban Local L 97 8.0 26 310 191700 RAMBLING DR 0.000 0.290 Urban Local L 96 16.5 28 1250 155900 RANCH CORRAL DR 0.000 0.068 Urban Local L 90 6.0 26 155800 RANCH DR 0.000 0.137 Urban Local L 95 6.0 28 245500 RAT CR RD 0.000 1.426 Rural Local L 36 11.0 20 300 610400 RATTLESNAKE RD 0.000 2.250 Rural Major Collector R 88 23.3 26 1400 610400 RATTLESNAKE RD 2.250 4.474 Rural Major Collector R 86 24 1150 610495 RATTLESNAKE RD (Y) 4.403 4.446 Rural Major Collector L 77 24 611000 RATTLESNAKE RD NO 0.000 0.195 Rural Local L 92 10.8 24 650 123300 RAVEN OAKS DR 0.000 0.204 Rural Local L 85 24 104700 RAYNER AVE 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 85 36 320 104700 RAYNER AVE 0.140 0.210 Urban Local L 85 32 196900 REGAL LN 0.000 0.280 Rural Local L 88 22 267200 REPSLEGER BRANCH RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Local R 3.0 15 40 267000 REPSLEGER RD 0.000 0.874 Rural Local L 71 13.0 18 90 121900 RESTWELL RD 0.000 0.210 Rural Local L 62 16 10 121900 RESTWELL RD 0.480 0.530 Rural Local L 100 20 623500 REUBEN LEIGH RD 0.000 0.790 Rural Local R 84 18 110 623500 REUBEN LEIGH RD 0.790 1.220 Rural Local L 84 22 623100 REUBEN LEIGH RD NO 0.000 0.030 Rural Local L 86 14 319700 REVELL ST 0.000 0.139 Urban Local L 89 14.5 22 319750 REVELL ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.035 Urban Local L 97 32 123700 REYNOLDS DR 0.000 0.240 Urban Local R 75 22 80 528000 RHODODENDRON DR 3.440 5.112 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 83 10.5 28 2250 531400 RHODODENDRON LP 0.000 0.420 Urban Local L 80 11.0 22 90 183900 RHODODENDRON ST 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 95 11.0 26 526900 RHODOWOOD DR 0.000 0.293 Urban Local L 85 10.3 24 210 504400 RICE RD 0.000 0.578 Rural Local L 92 6.5 20 504490 RICE RD CUL 0.000 0.028 Rural Local L 78 20 501800 RICHARDSON RD 0.000 0.100 Rural Minor Collector M 72 9.0 18 140 438600 RICHARDSON UPRIVER 0.000 0.440 Rural Local R 74 18 438600 RICHARDSON UPRIVER 0.440 5.343 Rural Local R 13 102200 RICHLAND ST 0.000 0.194 Urban Local L 100 16.0 32 70

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-56

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

102210 RICHLAND ST CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 100 35 428900 RICHMOND ST 0.000 0.156 Rural Local L 91 18 50 210600 RICKETTS RD 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 18 40 210600 RICKETTS RD 0.080 0.132 Rural Local L 18 210600 RICKETTS RD 0.132 0.160 Rural Local L 18 210600 RICKETTS RD 0.160 0.800 Rural Local L 18 272700 RIDGE DR 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 75 10.0 22 272740 RIDGE DR CUL 0.000 0.045 Rural Local L 70 21 190300 RIDGE TOP DR 0.000 0.240 Rural Local R 66 24 220 131300 RIDGEFIELD ST 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 94 10.0 26 130 131300 RIDGEFIELD ST 0.100 0.186 Urban Local L 94 14.0 26 140 605800 RIDGEWAY RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Minor Collector R 95 11.0 26 800 605800 RIDGEWAY RD 1.000 1.500 Rural Minor Collector R 92 22 605800 RIDGEWAY RD 1.500 2.540 Rural Minor Collector L 80 14.7 24 420 125700 RIDGEWOOD DR 0.000 0.208 Rural Local R 41 14 50 274100 RILEY LN 0.000 0.220 Rural Local R 92 11.3 20 319000 RIO VISTA AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 336540 RISDEN PL CUL 0.000 0.030 Urban Local L 86 32 336500 RISDEN PLACE 0.000 0.230 Urban Local L 80 10.0 32 216200 RIVER DR 0.000 1.030 Rural Local L 61 20 1000 216200 RIVER DR 1.030 2.943 Rural Local L 87 13.7 22 800 216205 RIVER DR (Y) 0.000 0.019 Rural Local L 90 27 325800 RIVER LP #1 0.000 0.244 Urban Major Collector L 89 7.0 26 1750 325800 RIVER LP #1 0.244 0.440 Urban Local L 89 26 1300 325800 RIVER LP #1 0.440 0.880 Urban Local L 92 25 800 325800 RIVER LP #1 0.880 1.181 Urban Local L 92 22 350 325800 RIVER LP #1 1.181 1.194 Urban Local L 92 22 325800 RIVER LP #1 1.194 1.257 Urban Local L 92 22 700 325800 RIVER LP #1 1.257 2.084 Urban Local L 92 22 550 318500 RIVER LP #2 0.000 0.990 Urban Minor Collector L 85 18.0 22 3700 318500 RIVER LP #2 0.990 1.016 Rural Local L 95 22 318500 RIVER LP #2 1.016 1.180 Rural Local L 95 22 250 110000 RIVER RD 0.000 0.430 Urban Minor Arterial L 83 36 4100 110000 RIVER RD 0.430 0.610 Urban Minor Arterial L 88 34

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-57

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

110000 RIVER RD 0.610 1.200 Rural Minor Arterial L 88 23.7 34 3650 110000 RIVER RD 1.200 1.600 Rural Minor Arterial L 95 34 4400 110000 RIVER RD 1.600 2.426 Rural Minor Arterial L 86 34 110000 RIVER RD 2.426 3.086 Rural Minor Arterial L 89 34 110000 RIVER RD 3.086 4.174 Rural Minor Arterial L 85 26.0 34 4400 110000 RIVER RD 4.174 5.484 Rural Minor Arterial L 83 34 5800 110000 RIVER RD 5.484 7.340 Rural Minor Arterial L 86 34 6700 110000 RIVER RD 7.340 7.366 Rural Minor Arterial L 69 42 7000 110000 RIVER RD 7.366 7.747 Urban Minor Arterial L 69 42 7050 110000 RIVER RD 7.747 7.753 Urban Minor Arterial L 69 42 110000 RIVER RD 7.753 7.850 Urban Minor Arterial L 87 48 110000 RIVER RD 7.850 7.920 Urban Minor Arterial L 86 60 110000 RIVER RD 7.920 8.320 Urban Minor Arterial L 89 70 11050 110000 RIVER RD 8.320 8.587 Urban Minor Arterial L 90 70 13600 110000 RIVER RD 8.587 9.377 Urban Principal Arterial L 90 70 24800 110000 RIVER RD 10.202 10.380 Urban Principal Arterial L 67 32 110000 RIVER RD 10.380 11.549 Urban Principal Arterial L 80 70 20850 110000 RIVER RD 12.234 12.281 Urban Principal Arterial L 87 30 627800 RIVERSIDE DR 0.000 0.582 Rural Local L 71 7.0 22 20 627900 RIVERSIDE LP 0.000 0.105 Rural Local L 65 6.5 22 504000 RIVERVIEW AVE 0.000 0.784 Rural Local L 91 18.3 22 170 313500 RIVERVIEW DR 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 94 20 130 313500 RIVERVIEW DR 0.500 0.946 Rural Local L 80 16 156300 RIVIERA CT 0.000 0.036 Urban Local L 94 12.0 26 315800 ROBBIE ST 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 94 15.0 32 628100 RODEO WAY 0.000 0.065 Rural Local L 66 11.0 22 601800 RODGERS RD 0.000 0.660 Rural Local L 91 20 100 601800 RODGERS RD 0.660 0.678 Rural Local L 85 20 601800 RODGERS RD 0.678 1.200 Rural Minor Collector L 85 20 360 601800 RODGERS RD 1.200 1.239 Rural Minor Collector R 84 20 601800 RODGERS RD 1.239 3.000 Rural Local R 84 20 140 610300 ROGERS LN 0.000 0.538 Rural Local L 76 10.8 22 184600 ROSE BLOSSOM DR NO 0.000 0.132 Urban Local L 100 13.0 28 170 184700 ROSE BLOSSOM DR SO 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 89 8.0 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-58

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

506200 ROSE HILL RD 0.000 0.418 Rural Local R 63 11.5 16 220 110400 ROSE ST 0.000 0.340 Rural Local L 80 18.0 22 70 347900 ROSE ST NO 0.359 0.523 Urban Local L 92 29 750 347800 ROSE ST SO 0.000 0.052 Urban Local L 97 9.0 18 325500 ROSEMARY AVE 0.000 0.129 Urban Local L 97 7.0 26 141500 ROSETTA AVE 0.000 0.212 Urban Local L 90 10.5 24 300 133800 ROSEWOOD AVE EAST 0.000 0.338 Urban Local L 98 15.0 28 1150 140600 ROSSMORE ST 0.000 0.114 Urban Local L 91 8.0 26 137900 ROSY TURN 0.000 0.071 Urban Local L 85 9.0 26 276000 ROUSE RD NO 0.000 0.310 Rural Local L 4.0 15 20 277000 ROUSE RD SO 0.000 0.200 Rural Local L 4.0 12 10 253100 ROW RIVER CONN #1 0.000 0.074 Rural Minor Collector L 91 32 950 253000 ROW RIVER CONN #2 0.000 0.124 Rural Local L 89 24 220 253005 ROW RIVER CONN #2 (Y) 0.000 0.019 Rural Local L 86 27 240000 ROW RIVER RD 1.042 1.795 Urban Minor Arterial L 82 30 7600 240000 ROW RIVER RD 1.795 1.900 Urban Minor Arterial L 82 30 240000 ROW RIVER RD 1.900 1.908 Urban Minor Arterial L 92 40 240000 ROW RIVER RD 1.908 2.100 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 92 40 240000 ROW RIVER RD 2.100 2.116 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 40 240000 ROW RIVER RD 2.116 4.820 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 19.3 40 5000 240000 ROW RIVER RD 4.820 4.840 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 89 26 240000 ROW RIVER RD 4.840 6.000 Rural Minor Collector R 89 14.0 26 750 240000 ROW RIVER RD 6.000 11.000 Rural Minor Collector R 89 17.3 24 240000 ROW RIVER RD 11.000 12.000 Rural Minor Collector R 91 26 240000 ROW RIVER RD 12.000 12.052 Rural Minor Collector R 93 30 210 240000 ROW RIVER RD 12.052 12.910 Rural Major Collector R 93 22.5 30 1350 240000 ROW RIVER RD 12.910 13.310 Rural Major Collector R 93 32 240000 ROW RIVER RD 13.310 16.230 Rural Major Collector R 93 25.5 20 240000 ROW RIVER RD 16.230 16.310 Rural Major Collector R 79 20 800 240000 ROW RIVER RD 16.310 16.597 Rural Major Collector R 79 20 550 240000 ROW RIVER RD 16.597 19.778 Rural Minor Collector R 79 3.5 20 104800 ROWAN AVE 0.000 0.195 Urban Local L 87 15.0 32 145500 ROYAL AVE 2.267 2.930 Urban Major Collector L 61 22 3250 145500 ROYAL AVE 2.930 3.267 Urban Major Collector L 84 30 3950

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-59

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

445500 ROYAL AVE 3.267 4.323 Rural Minor Collector R 100 25.2 30 4000 445500 ROYAL AVE 4.323 5.060 Rural Minor Collector R 100 30 3000 445500 ROYAL AVE 5.060 5.078 Rural Minor Collector R 73 18 445500 ROYAL AVE 5.078 5.500 Rural Local L 73 12.0 18 445500 ROYAL AVE 5.500 5.707 Rural Local L 86 18 328000 RUBY AVE 0.000 0.495 Urban Local L 90 13.0 32 331000 RUBY AVE 0.050 0.322 Urban Minor Collector L 91 10.5 20 1550 331000 RUBY AVE 0.322 0.346 Urban Local L 90 32 265500 RUDOLPH RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Local L 91 18 30 265500 RUDOLPH RD 0.040 0.628 Rural Local L 81 18 50 366200 RUST RD 0.000 0.995 Rural Local L 64 16 40 366240 RUST RD (STUB/BRIDGE) 0.000 0.006 Rural Local L 20 317900 RYAN ST & CUL 0.000 0.172 Urban Local L 91 18.0 36 317930 RYAN ST CUL 0.000 0.063 Urban Local L 91 16.0 32 198800 SADDLE VIEW DR 0.000 0.162 Rural Local R 89 21.5 22 336300 SAGE ST 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 96 14.5 28 220200 SAGINAW RD EAST 0.000 0.622 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 99 22.5 30 2350 220800 SAGINAW RD WEST 0.000 1.360 Rural Local R 98 20 480 531800 SALTAIRE ST 0.000 0.339 Urban Local L 99 12.0 24 531805 SALTAIRE ST 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 88 24 334900 SALTY WAY 0.000 0.102 Urban Local L 96 11.0 36 334980 SALTY WAY CUL 0.000 0.021 Urban Local L 94 32 364700 SAM BROWN RD 0.000 0.172 Rural Local L 17 20 364700 SAM BROWN RD 0.172 0.204 Rural Local L 12 364700 SAM BROWN RD 0.204 0.242 Rural Local L 17 320300 SANBORN AVE 0.000 0.250 Urban Local L 96 14.0 36 320320 SANBORN AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.049 Urban Local L 95 15.0 27 524300 SAND DUNE PARK DR 0.000 0.136 Rural Local L 96 3.8 18 532100 SANDRIFT CT 0.000 0.101 Urban Local L 96 24 531900 SANDRIFT ST 0.000 0.341 Urban Local L 97 12.0 24 122600 SANFORD RD 0.000 0.844 Rural Local L 66 22 180 327500 SANTA CLARA AVE 0.000 0.170 Urban Local L 91 30 3550 327500 SANTA CLARA AVE 0.170 0.390 Urban Local L 73 10.8 26 2300 327500 SANTA CLARA AVE 0.390 0.588 Urban Local L 93 10.5 33 850

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-60

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

327580 SANTA CLARA AVE CUL 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 91 28 523600 SANTA RD 0.000 0.040 Rural Local R 56 8.5 20 30 131200 SANTA ROSA ST 0.000 0.164 Urban Local L 92 10.5 25 250 131200 SANTA ROSA ST 0.164 0.186 Urban Local L 94 26 131200 SANTA ROSA ST 0.186 0.249 Urban Local L 94 25 120 413600 SARVIS BERRY LN 0.000 1.630 Rural Local L 72 9.5 22 320 196400 SAUNDERS RD 0.000 0.296 Rural Local R 85 6.8 18 70 197400 SAVAGE ST 0.000 0.156 Rural Local L 87 9.5 18 320800 SAVILLE AVE 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 87 36 320800 SAVILLE AVE 0.090 0.323 Urban Local L 94 15.0 28 320820 SAVILLE AVE CUL 0.000 0.024 Urban Local L 89 28 320890 SAVILLE AVE CUL 'A' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 96 14.0 32 320870 SAVILLE AVE CUL 'B' 0.000 0.045 Urban Local L 91 28 310800 SCENIC DR 0.000 0.765 Urban Minor Collector R 91 14.0 20 1600 321500 SCENIC DR 0.000 0.325 Urban Local L 73 13.5 36 1000 315700 SCENIC DR CUL 0.000 0.057 Urban Local L 94 17.0 32 186600 SCHAREN RD 0.000 0.670 Rural Local R 84 20 40 121300 SCHMORENBERG LN 0.000 0.310 Rural Local L 48 20 80 211800 SCOTT AVE 0.000 0.087 Rural Local L 9 10.5 18 256500 SCOTT RD 0.000 0.465 Rural Local L 40 18 90 317600 SCOTTDALE ST & CUL 0.000 0.170 Urban Local L 92 12.0 28 120 317600 SCOTTDALE ST & CUL 0.170 0.500 Urban Local L 91 16.0 36 1050 317650 SCOTTDALE ST CUL 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 86 32 317660 SCOTTDALE ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.025 Urban Local L 86 32 151200 SCOUT ACCESS RD 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 99 17.0 36 531300 SEA BREEZE LN 0.000 0.107 Urban Local L 94 8.5 22 60 523700 SEA LION DR 0.000 0.078 Rural Local L 95 11.0 24 40 531200 SEAPINE DR 0.000 0.438 Urban Local L 74 11.3 24 241000 SEARS RD 0.000 0.640 Rural Minor Collector L 70 22 1000 241000 SEARS RD 0.640 2.950 Rural Minor Collector L 81 9.1 22 241000 SEARS RD 2.950 3.257 Rural Minor Collector L 78 30 800 241000 SEARS RD 3.257 3.350 Rural Minor Collector L 78 30 800 241000 SEARS RD 3.350 9.610 Rural Minor Collector L 72 16.2 22 241000 SEARS RD 9.610 9.808 Rural Minor Collector L 83 32 800

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-61

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

188100 SEAVEY LP RD 0.000 3.791 Rural Minor Collector L 79 17.5 24 1700 188195 SEAVEY LP RD (Y) 3.773 3.795 Rural Minor Collector L 96 20 189300 SEAVEY WAY 0.000 0.257 Rural Local L 96 18 550 189300 SEAVEY WAY 0.257 0.288 Rural Local L 96 18 529700 SEBASTIAN ST 0.000 0.094 Urban Local R 82 5.8 16 90 126900 SEELY LN 0.000 0.400 Rural Local L 68 24 90 183100 SENECA AVE 0.000 0.095 Urban Local L 86 7.5 16 149500 SEQUOIA AVE 0.000 0.280 Urban Local L 91 12.0 26 330 151300 SEWARD AVE 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 95 10.0 26 156200 SEWARD AVE 0.000 0.251 Urban Local L 91 4.0 26 180 195200 SHADOWS DR 0.000 0.580 Rural Local L 70 14.0 22 120 155000 SHADYLANE DR 0.000 0.060 Urban Local L 72 14.0 26 1050 316600 SHAMROCK AVE 0.000 0.136 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 110 316700 SHAMROCK CT 0.000 0.088 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 318700 SHANNON ST 0.000 0.200 Urban Local L 93 13.0 28 318700 SHANNON ST 0.200 0.393 Urban Local L 93 28 250 318780 SHANNON ST CUL 0.000 0.020 Urban Local L 95 78 246000 SHARPS CR RD 0.000 2.588 Rural Minor Collector M 87 17.5 30 110 246000 SHARPS CR RD 2.588 6.431 Rural Minor Collector M 87 16.2 30 246000 SHARPS CR RD 6.431 9.650 Rural Minor Collector M 88 16.0 30 246000 SHARPS CR RD 9.650 10.160 Rural Minor Collector M 85 14.0 20 246000 SHARPS CR RD 10.160 12.000 Rural Minor Collector M 18 246000 SHARPS CR RD 12.000 17.498 Rural Minor Collector M 14 401600 SHEFFLER RD 0.000 1.870 Rural Minor Collector R 86 16.3 22 950 401600 SHEFFLER RD 1.870 4.197 Rural Minor Collector R 93 30 180 193400 SHENANDOAH LP RD 0.000 0.538 Rural Local R 98 13.0 22 120 336600 SHENSTONE DR 0.026 0.147 Urban Local L 94 14.0 32 213900 SHER KHAN RD 0.000 0.160 Rural Local L 57 20 170 213900 SHER KHAN RD 0.160 0.270 Rural Local L 58 20 213900 SHER KHAN RD 0.270 0.975 Rural Local L 67 20 222700 SHERRI CT 0.000 0.043 Rural Local L 54 12.5 24 324600 SHIRLEY ST 0.000 0.156 Urban Local L 92 12.0 22 275500 SHOESTRING RD 0.000 3.770 Rural Minor Collector M 96 9.0 22 180 522300 SHORE CREST DR 0.000 0.742 Rural Local L 70 4.0 18

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-62

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

375400 SHORE LN 0.000 0.980 Rural Local L 77 18 180 244000 SHOREVIEW DR 0.000 1.540 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 88 22.3 30 2100 244000 SHOREVIEW DR 1.540 6.500 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 87 34 244000 SHOREVIEW DR 6.500 6.583 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 90 30 1350 244095 SHOREVIEW DR (WAYSIDE) 0.000 0.106 Rural Local L 95 25 274000 SHORT RIDGE HILL RD 0.000 0.321 Rural Local R 86 7.5 22 110 345800 SIEGMAN-SMYTH RD 0.000 2.556 Rural Local R 68 6.3 21 122300 SIESTA LN 0.000 0.620 Rural Local L 58 22 70 533400 SILTCOOS STA RD 0.000 1.000 Rural Minor Collector M 82 14.0 20 70 533400 SILTCOOS STA RD 1.000 1.850 Rural Minor Collector M 87 16 533400 SILTCOOS STA RD 1.850 4.841 Rural Minor Collector M 8.0 22 131400 SILVER LN 0.458 0.511 Urban Major Collector L 78 34 3450 131400 SILVER LN 0.511 0.786 Urban Local L 33 28.0 34 750 326700 SILVER MEADOWS DR 0.000 0.194 Urban Local L 96 8.0 28 415500 SIMMONS RD 0.000 0.256 Rural Local R 85 7.8 18 80 409600 SIMONSEN RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 59 19 40 409600 SIMONSEN RD 0.500 1.500 Rural Local L 52 19 409600 SIMONSEN RD 1.500 1.729 Rural Local L 64 18 409605 SIMONSEN RD (Y) 0.000 0.157 Rural Local L 38 18 272000 SIMPSON CT 0.000 0.123 Rural Local R 84 20.3 24 439100 SIUSLAW FALLS RD 0.000 0.490 Rural Local L 78 16.5 18 10 439000 SIUSLAW RD 0.000 5.920 Rural Major Collector M 65 20 100 439000 SIUSLAW RD 25.351 26.750 Rural Major Collector M 92 18 439000 SIUSLAW RD 26.750 28.000 Rural Major Collector M 74 17.2 20 130 439000 SIUSLAW RD 28.000 28.500 Rural Major Collector M 73 20 439000 SIUSLAW RD 28.500 39.500 Rural Major Collector M 68 16.7 20 190 439000 SIUSLAW RD 39.500 44.207 Rural Major Collector M 59 26 700 144200 SKIP CT 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 94 13.0 26 133200 SKIPPER AVE 0.000 0.586 Urban Local L 90 13.5 34 1000 506600 SKUNK HOLLOW RD 0.000 0.320 Rural Local L 81 10.5 16 190 506605 SKUNK HOLLOW RD (Y) 0.000 0.056 Rural Local L 78 12 190900 SKYHAWK WAY 0.000 0.180 Rural Local R 88 12.0 24 142800 SMITHOAK ST 0.000 0.107 Urban Local L 94 14.5 36 142850 SMITHOAK ST (CUL) 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 90 28

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-63

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

374800 SNYDER RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 90 30 310 374800 SNYDER RD 0.050 0.500 Rural Local L 79 22 374800 SNYDER RD 0.500 0.905 Rural Local L 62 22 600 122800 SO MODESTO ST 0.000 0.444 Rural Local L 74 18 80 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 0.000 2.613 Rural Major Collector M 91 14.5 26 280 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 2.613 4.750 Rural Local R 80 16.5 26 140 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 4.750 5.750 Rural Local L 82 9.3 18 40 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 5.750 5.830 Rural Local L 86 22 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 5.830 5.850 Rural Local M 86 20 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 5.850 6.000 Rural Local M 87 14 533000 SOUTH CANARY RD 6.000 6.251 Rural Local M 91 14 530000 SOUTH JETTY RD 0.000 0.620 Rural Minor Collector R 93 16.5 30 1600 101300 SOUTH M ST 0.000 0.223 Urban Local L 95 8.3 20 100 224000 SOUTH RIVER RD 0.000 0.316 Rural Major Collector L 100 9.3 22 950 523100 SOUTH SHORE DR 0.000 0.187 Rural Local L 87 6.5 14 190 532400 SOUTH SLOUGH RD 0.000 1.024 Rural Local L 73 10.5 20 100 223100 SOUTHGATE WAY 0.000 0.035 Rural Local L 83 24 313000 SOVERN LN 0.000 1.540 Rural Local L 86 22 750 330400 SPEARMINT ST 0.000 0.245 Urban Local L 96 14.0 32 330450 SPEARMINT ST CUL 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 93 20.0 32 413200 SPENCER CR RD 0.000 0.120 Rural Major Collector R 99 33 1350 413200 SPENCER CR RD 0.120 0.500 Rural Major Collector R 100 22 413200 SPENCER CR RD 0.500 3.285 Rural Major Collector R 100 19.0 22 1100 413295 SPENCER CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.030 Rural Major Collector L 89 22 244200 SPILLWAY RD 0.000 0.237 Rural Local L 62 8.6 18 70 374000 SPIRES LN (N) 0.000 0.020 Rural Local L 78 18 374000 SPIRES LN (N) 0.020 0.055 Rural Local L 78 18 150 172000 SPRAGUE RD 0.000 0.136 Urban Local L 92 22 120 172000 SPRAGUE RD 0.136 0.260 Urban Local L 92 22 172000 SPRAGUE RD 0.260 0.280 Urban Local L 80 24 172000 SPRAGUE RD 0.280 0.420 Urban Local L 62 18 189900 SPRING BLVD 0.000 0.103 Urban Local L 91 36 189901 SPRING BLVD NW RAMP #20 0.000 0.168 Urban Minor Arterial R 93 26 189902 SPRING BLVD SE RAMP #40 0.000 0.149 Urban Minor Arterial R 93 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-64

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

317500 SPRING CR DR 0.000 0.527 Urban Minor Collector L 96 13.0 24 3100 199600 SPRING VALLEY LN 0.000 0.070 Rural Local R 11 171700 SPRINGDALE AVE 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 94 13.0 28 347600 SPRUCE ST 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 96 5.5 24 347700 SPRUCE ST 0.000 0.091 Urban Local L 96 11.3 30 1350 371500 SQUIRE DR 0.000 0.208 Rural Local L 91 22 502000 STAGECOACH RD 0.000 2.500 Rural Minor Collector M 62 17 90 502000 STAGECOACH RD 2.500 4.200 Rural Minor Collector M 74 10.0 16 502000 STAGECOACH RD 4.200 9.704 Rural Minor Collector M 13.0 14 502000 STAGECOACH RD 9.704 11.488 Rural Minor Collector M 75 12.0 22 210 163200 STALLINGS LN 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 61 20 270 163200 STALLINGS LN 0.500 0.825 Rural Local L 38 12 608000 STAR RD 0.000 0.155 Rural Local R 94 14.0 18 90 323725 STARK ST CUL (SO) 0.000 0.034 Urban Local L 94 28 323500 STARK ST N 0.000 0.119 Urban Local L 94 10.0 34 323540 STARK ST N CUL 0.000 0.092 Urban Local L 96 32 362100 STARLITE LN 0.000 0.479 Rural Local L 91 18 504300 STEELHEAD DRIVE 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 58 14.0 12 515000 STEINHAUER RD 0.000 0.157 Rural Local R 13 20 515000 STEINHAUER RD 0.157 0.180 Rural Local R 71 13 515000 STEINHAUER RD 0.180 0.820 Rural Local R 12.0 13 321100 STILLMAN AVE 0.000 0.218 Urban Local L 96 13.0 28 614600 STONE CT 0.000 0.033 Rural Local L 95 22 327700 STRATFORD ST 0.000 0.236 Urban Local L 93 14.5 33 230 405300 STRAWBERRY LN 0.000 0.443 Rural Local L 62 6.3 20 260 126800 STRAYER PL 0.000 0.123 Rural Local R 81 24 141900 STROME CT 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 79 8.0 26 434000 STURTEVANT DR 0.000 0.620 Rural Local L 87 20 140 434100 STURTEVANT DR 0.000 0.300 Rural Local R 14 434000 STURTEVANT DR 0.620 0.770 Rural Local R 77 14 317800 SUBURBAN AVE 0.000 0.184 Urban Local L 93 10.0 26 110 317880 SUBURBAN AVE CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 93 8.0 28 177100 SUE ANN CT 0.000 0.049 Urban Local L 96 10.0 24 365600 SUMICH RD 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 83 32 40

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-65

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

365600 SUMICH RD 0.060 0.170 Rural Local L 19 365600 SUMICH RD 0.170 0.280 Rural Local L 86 28 365600 SUMICH RD 0.280 0.623 Rural Local L 16 333300 SUMMER LN 0.000 0.172 Urban Local L 95 9.0 28 334800 SUMMER LN 0.000 0.127 Urban Local L 96 17.0 36 334840 SUMMER LN CUL 0.000 0.061 Urban Local L 96 18.0 32 414000 SUMMERVILLE RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 87 28 120 414000 SUMMERVILLE RD 0.050 0.855 Rural Local L 68 13.0 20 194800 SUNDERMAN RD 0.000 2.728 Rural Minor Collector L 90 28 950 125500 SUNDIAL AVE 0.000 0.130 Urban Local R 98 20 30 242600 SUNFLOWER CT 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 66 24 137500 SUNNYSIDE DR 0.000 0.472 Urban Local L 91 12.3 26 600 613500 SUNSET AVE 0.000 0.413 Urban Local L 82 10.5 20 222800 SUNSET DR 0.000 0.441 Rural Local R 53 8.0 20 271800 SUNSET VIEW RD 0.000 0.095 Rural Local L 17 12.3 18 10 133600 SUNVIEW ST 0.000 0.280 Urban Local L 86 13.3 26 200 333000 SUSAN ST 0.000 0.110 Urban Local L 95 13.0 28 512600 SUTHERLAND RD 0.000 0.080 Rural Local L 39 11.0 22 512600 SUTHERLAND RD 0.080 0.110 Rural Local L 14 441000 SUTTLE RD 0.000 3.802 Rural Major Collector L 80 24 1450 522100 SUTTON EAST RD 0.000 0.066 Rural Local R 85 4.0 14 522400 SUTTON LAKE DR 0.000 0.207 Rural Local R 87 3.5 16 523000 SUTTON LAKE RD 0.000 0.460 Rural Minor Collector R 98 13.0 22 800 523000 SUTTON LAKE RD 0.460 2.688 Rural Minor Collector R 100 12.3 18 370 521800 SUTTON PL 0.000 0.048 Rural Local L 89 6.5 18 127200 SVARVERUD RD 0.000 0.460 Rural Local R 78 24 70 127200 SVARVERUD RD 0.460 0.860 Rural Local R 84 20 365800 SWAMP CR RD 0.000 1.485 Rural Local L 74 16 90 159800 SWAN CT 0.000 0.032 Urban Local L 92 20 503600 SWEET CR RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Major Collector M 82 18.0 22 340 503600 SWEET CR RD 1.500 2.430 Rural Major Collector M 83 30.8 22 503600 SWEET CR RD 2.430 4.650 Rural Major Collector M 83 20.5 22 200 503600 SWEET CR RD 4.650 5.830 Rural Major Collector M 85 22 130 503600 SWEET CR RD 5.830 6.000 Rural Local L 85 22

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-66

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

503600 SWEET CR RD 6.000 10.587 Rural Local L 88 21.8 22 224800 SWEET LN 0.000 0.316 Urban Minor Collector L 89 27.8 30 950 224800 SWEET LN 0.316 0.500 Urban Minor Collector L 80 30 224800 SWEET LN 0.500 0.569 Urban Minor Collector L 80 22 224800 SWEET LN 0.569 0.718 Rural Minor Collector R 80 22 600 223300 TAFT AVE 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 18 348700 TALBOTT LN 0.000 0.143 Rural Local L 12 20 10 225000 TALEMENA DR 0.000 0.760 Rural Local R 83 18.5 22 700 151100 TAMARACK ST 0.000 0.143 Urban Local L 26 26 190 347200 TAMARACK ST 0.000 0.090 Rural Local L 96 10.0 20 80 151100 TAMARACK ST 0.143 0.347 Urban Local L 42 10.5 26 1200 107100 TAMORA DR 0.000 0.270 Rural Local R 18 403700 TANYA LN 0.000 0.138 Rural Local L 88 7.5 18 336000 TARTON PL 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 95 12.0 32 218400 TATE RD EAST 0.000 0.202 Rural Local L 82 20 110 218200 TATE RD WEST 0.000 0.530 Rural Local L 74 10.3 18 100 223200 TAYLOR BUTTE RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 79 22 380 223200 TAYLOR BUTTE RD 0.500 0.717 Rural Local L 86 20 112600 TAYLOR RD 0.000 0.447 Rural Local L 77 8.3 20 30 186800 TEAGUE LP 0.000 0.250 Rural Local R 78 20 322300 TEMPA ST 0.000 0.145 Urban Local L 94 17.0 36 363500 TEMPLETON RD 0.000 1.400 Rural Local L 74 20 130 363500 TEMPLETON RD 1.400 2.432 Rural Local L 67 16 363500 TEMPLETON RD 2.572 4.847 Rural Local R 521000 TEN MILE RD 0.000 2.012 Rural Minor Collector M 7.0 14 80 521000 TEN MILE RD 2.012 2.143 Rural Minor Collector M 86 14 521000 TEN MILE RD 2.143 8.340 Rural Minor Collector M 7.0 14 606200 TENAS LN 0.000 0.160 Rural Local L 88 5.3 18 322500 TERRA LINDA AVE 0.000 0.363 Urban Local L 97 14.0 36 500 525800 TERRACE VIEW DR 0.000 0.279 Urban Local L 82 9.5 22 260100 TERRITORIAL LN 0.000 0.237 Rural Local L 12 260100 TERRITORIAL LN 0.237 0.495 Rural Local R 12 260100 TERRITORIAL LN 0.495 0.699 Rural Local L 12 172100 THEONA DRIVE 0.000 0.183 Urban Local L 96 16.0 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-67

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

143000 THOMASON LN 0.024 0.127 Urban Local L 91 11.0 20 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Minor Collector M 66 20 40 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 0.050 2.988 Rural Minor Collector M 9.0 14 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 2.988 3.010 Rural Minor Collector M 14 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 3.010 4.300 Rural Minor Collector M 14 511000 THOMPSON CR RD 4.300 4.820 Rural Minor Collector M 82 10.5 16 50 407700 THOMS RD 0.000 0.246 Rural Local L 91 4.3 16 80 109900 THOMSON LN 0.000 0.253 Rural Local L 77 12.5 22 50 252200 THORNTON LN 0.020 0.150 Urban Local L 91 44 800 252200 THORNTON LN 0.150 0.185 Urban Local L 91 38 252200 THORNTON LN 0.185 0.246 Urban Local L 91 32 252200 THORNTON LN 0.246 0.518 Urban Local L 91 36 252000 THORNTON RD SO 0.143 0.150 Rural Minor Collector L 18 252000 THORNTON RD SO 0.150 0.284 Rural Minor Collector L 98 18 1500 315200 THUNDERBIRD DR 0.000 0.445 Urban Local L 89 15.0 36 130 315220 THUNDERBIRD DR 0.000 0.029 Urban Local L 89 36 103500 THURSTON RD 0.000 1.082 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 29 470 103500 THURSTON RD 1.082 1.330 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 5.5 29 103500 THURSTON RD 1.330 1.877 Rural Major Collector (Fed) L 89 29 431000 TIDBALL LN 0.130 0.400 Rural Local L 69 10.5 20 504800 TIERNAN RD EAST 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 94 12.5 16 10 504600 TIERNAN RD NO 0.000 0.129 Rural Local R 78 11.0 16 220 105600 TIKI LN 0.000 0.424 Rural Local R 80 12.0 22 300 323900 TILDEN ST 0.000 0.084 Urban Local L 91 14.0 28 606100 TILLICUM AVE 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 69 36 800 606100 TILLICUM AVE 0.050 0.260 Rural Local L 81 5.3 18 606100 TILLICUM AVE 0.260 0.318 Rural Local L 63 16 160200 TINAMOU LN 0.000 0.125 Urban Local L 93 14.3 36 607700 TINKER RD 0.000 0.050 Rural Local L 98 12.0 16 70 225200 TIOGA CT 0.000 0.142 Rural Local R 92 11.0 22 225100 TIOGA DR 0.000 0.190 Rural Local M 100 12.5 22 319600 TIPTON AVE 0.000 0.065 Urban Local L 96 14.0 22 323800 TIVOLI ST 0.000 0.228 Urban Local L 96 14.0 36 223400 TOBIASSON RD 0.000 0.135 Rural Local R 95 11.8 20

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-68

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

351500 TOFTDAHL LN NO 0.000 1.690 Rural Local L 95 20 410 351800 TOFTDAHL LN SO 0.000 0.323 Rural Local L 78 20 190 107400 TONGA LN 0.000 0.470 Rural Local R 91 20.0 22 178000 TORR AVE 0.000 0.111 Urban Local L 95 15.0 32 178060 TORR AVE CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 96 15.0 32 436000 TORRENCE RD 0.000 0.229 Rural Local R 7.5 18 50 436000 TORRENCE RD 0.229 0.367 Rural Local L 12 508500 TRAIL CR RD 0.000 0.580 Rural Local R 2.0 13 437400 TRANSFORMER RD 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 83 22 329000 TRAVIS AVE 0.000 0.160 Urban Local L 92 20.0 36 216100 TREADWELL RD 0.000 0.061 Rural Local L 98 29.8 22 240 194900 TREE FARM RD 0.000 0.973 Rural Local L 70 18 250 194905 TREE FARM RD (Y) 0.000 0.064 Rural Local L 84 20 526800 TREEWOOD DR 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 92 10.3 24 120 366400 TRIANGLE LAKE RES RD 0.000 0.438 Rural Local R 14 70 400900 TRIPP RD 0.000 0.140 Rural Local L 10 605600 TUDOR ST 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 97 16.0 18 219300 TURKEY RUN RD 0.000 1.057 Rural Local R 75 9.5 20 200 345900 TURNBOW LN 0.000 1.524 Rural Local R 100 6.5 20 250 182600 TWIN BUTTES RD 0.000 0.471 Rural Local L 83 20 70 524700 TWIN FAWN DR 0.000 0.100 Rural Local R 100 10.0 20 107800 TWIN FIRS RD 0.000 0.682 Rural Local R 76 15.3 28 230 336200 TYSON LN 0.000 0.127 Urban Local L 91 13.0 32 336290 TYSON LN CUL 0.000 0.039 Urban Local L 87 13.0 32 442000 UNIT A (UNOFFICIAL NAME) 0.000 0.120 Rural Local L 60 20 105300 UPLAND ST 0.000 0.108 Rural Local L 58 9.5 14 120 193100 UPPER CAMP CR CONN 0.000 0.030 Rural Local L 93 14 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 0.000 1.500 Rural Minor Collector M 79 17.8 22 1000 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 1.500 2.000 Rural Minor Collector M 77 22 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 2.000 3.000 Rural Minor Collector R 85 22 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 3.000 4.610 Rural Minor Collector R 86 22 193200 UPPER CAMP CR RD 4.610 5.764 Rural Minor Collector R 58 20 532200 UPPER DEADWOOD CR RD 0.000 1.073 Rural Local R 14 532200 UPPER DEADWOOD CR RD 1.073 1.951 Rural Local R 12

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-69

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

508400 UPPER NO FORK RD 0.000 3.044 Rural Minor Collector M 69 13.2 22 130 508400 UPPER NO FORK RD 3.044 3.150 Rural Local L 84 22 508400 UPPER NO FORK RD 3.150 4.115 Rural Local L 70 16.5 18 508400 UPPER NO FORK RD 4.115 6.695 Rural Local L 79 18.4 18 177000 VALENTINE CT 0.000 0.050 Urban Local L 98 9.5 26 629500 VALLEY RD 0.000 0.816 Rural Local L 93 10.5 20 410 174101 VALLEY RIVER DR NW RP #21 0.000 0.205 Urban Principal Arterial L 64 31 4700 174102 VALLEY RIVER DR SW RP #30 0.000 0.346 Urban Principal Arterial L 70 26 5900 362900 VALLEY VIEW DR 0.000 0.070 Rural Local R 20 18 226100 VALLEY VIEW LN 0.000 0.298 Rural Local R 67 6.8 20 220900 VALLEY VIEW RD 0.000 0.092 Rural Local L 11 435500 VALLEY VISTA DR 0.000 0.320 Rural Local R 72 13.0 20 160100 VAN DUYN RD 0.000 0.147 Rural Local L 24 2150 160100 VAN DUYN RD 0.147 1.637 Rural Local L 66 21.0 24 1550 319200 VAN FOSSEN CT 0.000 0.052 Urban Local L 92 15.5 28 433500 VAUGHN RD 0.000 4.500 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 70 24 650 433500 VAUGHN RD 4.500 6.700 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 84 19.5 28 600 433500 VAUGHN RD 6.700 9.906 Rural Major Collector (Fed) R 70 23.0 22 950 266500 VEATCH RD 0.000 0.060 Rural Local L 81 18 140 266500 VEATCH RD 0.060 0.534 Rural Local R 75 18 180500 VERA DR 0.000 0.207 Urban Local L 100 8.0 32 120 332800 VERBENA AVE 0.000 0.163 Urban Local L 97 14.0 26 335300 VICTORIA LN 0.000 0.105 Urban Local L 78 16.0 32 522600 VIEW DR 0.000 0.186 Rural Local L 89 3.5 18 184100 VIEWMOUNT AVE 0.000 0.100 Urban Local L 96 10.0 28 184200 VIEWMOUNT AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 94 26 340 184200 VIEWMOUNT AVE 0.120 0.246 Urban Local L 93 32 184260 VIEWMOUNT AVE CUL 0.000 0.043 Urban Local L 90 14.0 32 184280 VIEWMOUNT AVE CUL 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 96 32 311400 VIKING ST 0.000 0.090 Urban Local L 91 28 80 156600 VILLA WAY 0.000 0.258 Urban Local L 93 12.0 28 120 346600 VINE ST 0.000 0.246 Urban Local L 97 12.0 22 250 141000 VIRGIL AVE 0.000 0.120 Urban Local L 90 14.0 30 141200 VIRGIL AVE 0.000 0.083 Urban Local L 94 11.5 32

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-70

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

430200 VISTA DR 0.000 0.341 Rural Local L 89 13.3 22 270 361000 VOGT RD 0.000 1.495 Rural Local L 92 21.7 24 350 225700 WAHEENA CT 0.000 0.046 Rural Local R 100 12.5 24 335400 WAKEFIELD CT 0.000 0.065 Urban Local L 83 15.0 25 255000 WALDON LN 0.000 0.205 Rural Local L 6.5 18 621000 WALLACE CR RD 0.000 2.653 Rural Local R 78 11.5 20 550 347100 WALNUT ST 0.000 0.119 Urban Local L 79 8.5 22 90 107000 WALTERVILLE LN 0.000 0.317 Rural Local L 71 9.3 22 120 107200 WALTERVILLE LP EAST 0.000 0.137 Rural Local L 100 8.3 22 110 332200 WARE LN 0.000 0.155 Urban Local L 96 18.0 32 332270 WARE LN CUL 'B' 0.000 0.033 Urban Local L 96 32 322900 WARRINGTON AVE 0.000 0.232 Urban Local L 93 16.0 28 402400 WARTHEN RD 0.000 1.180 Rural Minor Collector L 77 26 3000 402400 WARTHEN RD 1.180 4.008 Rural Minor Collector R 82 16.7 22 1150 345700 WASHBURN LN 0.000 1.480 Rural Local L 0 22 10 345700 WASHBURN LN 1.480 2.544 Rural Local L 90 22 310 345795 WASHBURN LN (Y) 0.000 0.029 Rural Local L 84 22 225500 WATAGUA PL 0.000 0.435 Rural Local R 100 13.0 22 225300 WATAGUA WAY & CUL 0.000 0.531 Rural Local R 100 9.5 22 321700 WATSON DR 0.000 0.150 Urban Local L 87 14.0 18 225600 WAUKEENA WAY & CUL 0.000 0.372 Rural Local R 100 13.0 24 151900 WAYSIDE LN & LP 0.000 0.610 Urban Local L 93 11.1 20 650 103900 WEAVER LN 0.000 0.070 Rural Local L 91 4.0 18 100 103900 WEAVER LN 0.070 0.230 Rural Local L 58 10.0 18 103900 WEAVER LN 0.230 0.360 Rural Local L 91 18 330500 WEBSTER ST 0.000 0.096 Urban Local L 97 5.5 18 331800 WEDGEWOOD DR 0.000 0.291 Urban Local L 93 4.5 26 650 214600 WEISS RD 0.000 2.052 Rural Local L 78 20 180 192300 WEMBERLY WAY 0.000 0.062 Urban Local L 98 14.0 28 197500 WENDLING RD 0.000 1.600 Rural Minor Collector R 65 18.5 24 1400 197500 WENDLING RD 1.600 3.570 Rural Minor Collector R 75 22 420 197500 WENDLING RD 3.570 3.875 Rural Minor Collector R 88 22 323600 WENDOVER ST 0.000 0.118 Urban Local L 93 17.0 28 324200 WENDOVER ST 0.000 0.097 Urban Local L 92 14.0 36

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-71

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

627000 WEST BOUNDARY RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Minor Collector L 85 22 700 627000 WEST BOUNDARY RD 0.150 0.528 Rural Minor Collector L 89 14.5 22 627000 WEST BOUNDARY RD 0.528 1.680 Rural Minor Collector R 89 12.3 22 330 627000 WEST BOUNDARY RD 1.680 15.842 Rural Minor Collector R 9.0 22 401000 WEST DEMMING RD 0.000 0.849 Rural Local L 70 20 450 513400 WEST FORK INDIAN CR 0.000 3.330 Rural Local R 7.0 14 514200 WEST FORK RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 75 20 90 514200 WEST FORK RD 0.500 1.130 Rural Local L 86 13.1 20 514200 WEST FORK RD 1.130 3.560 Rural Local R 69 12.5 16 151000 WEST QUINALT AVE 0.000 0.284 Urban Local L 98 12.0 32 160 401800 WEST SHEFFLER RD 0.000 2.352 Rural Minor Collector R 77 12.0 30 250 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 0.000 1.422 Rural Major Collector R 78 20.8 26 600 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 1.422 2.000 Rural Major Collector R 78 26 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 2.000 3.050 Rural Major Collector R 84 24 800 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 3.050 3.569 Rural Major Collector R 65 20 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 3.569 5.643 Rural Major Collector M 65 20 650 612800 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 5.643 6.065 Urban Major Collector M 65 20 1050 612895 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD (Y) 6.044 6.068 Urban Minor Collector R 89 18 605400 WESTMINSTER ST 0.000 0.254 Rural Local L 87 13.0 22 100 614500 WESTRIDGE AVE 0.000 0.293 Rural Local L 95 13.5 22 220 628000 WHEELER RD 0.000 0.500 Rural Local L 92 11.5 20 900 628000 WHEELER RD 0.500 1.840 Rural Local L 91 11.5 25 600 628000 WHEELER RD 1.840 2.150 Rural Local L 92 26 628000 WHEELER RD 2.150 5.260 Rural Local L 89 6.8 22 650 252300 WHETHAM WAY 0.000 0.150 Urban Local L 98 8.8 20 197000 WHITMORE ST 0.000 0.217 Rural Local L 56 20 600 335700 WICKHAM CT 0.000 0.077 Urban Local L 81 14.5 25 245800 WICKS RD 0.000 0.473 Rural Local L 88 11.5 24 380 172200 WILBUR AVE 0.000 0.497 Urban Local L 69 20 90 427800 WILDROSE LN 0.000 0.452 Rural Local L 86 20 429900 WILDWOOD RD 0.000 0.590 Rural Local L 63 6.3 22 220 321400 WILKES DR 0.000 0.290 Urban Major Collector L 90 18.0 32 3550 321400 WILKES DR 0.290 0.790 Urban Major Collector L 90 15.0 32 2650 321400 WILKES DR 0.790 0.932 Urban Major Collector L 92 10.0 22 800

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-72

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

321410 WILKES FRONTAGE RD 0.000 0.073 Urban Local L 97 20 321412 WILKES FRONTAGE STUB RD 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 97 33 162000 WILKINS RD 0.000 1.608 Rural Local L 76 16.0 18 140 140000 WILLA ST 0.000 0.135 Urban Local L 91 14.0 26 166001 WILLAG RD NEE RAMP #10 0.000 0.285 Urban Principal Arterial L 90 22 2800 166100 WILLAGILLESPIE CONN #1 0.000 0.052 Urban Principal Arterial L 68 32 606000 WILLAMA VISTA ST 0.000 0.307 Rural Local L 88 8.5 18 311200 WILLAMETTE DR 0.000 1.000 Rural Local L 84 18 230 311200 WILLAMETTE DR 1.000 1.102 Rural Local L 92 12 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 4.160 4.213 Rural Major Collector R 87 30 1400 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 4.213 5.000 Rural Major Collector R 87 30 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 5.000 5.219 Rural Major Collector R 86 28 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 5.219 5.485 Rural Major Collector R 86 28 120000 WILLAMETTE ST SO 5.485 6.522 Rural Major Collector R 86 19.0 28 800 270700 WILLIAMS CREEK LOOP 0.000 0.327 Rural Local L 60 9.0 22 123500 WILLOW CR RD 1.546 1.858 Urban Local L 90 22 123500 WILLOW CR RD 1.858 2.855 Urban Local R 90 11.5 22 320500 WILLOWBROOK ST 0.000 0.147 Urban Local L 96 18.0 28 200 603400 WILLS RD 0.000 0.640 Rural Local R 100 14.5 18 80 271900 WILSON CREEK RD 0.000 0.858 Rural Local L 54 18.0 24 140 624500 WINBERRY CR RD 0.000 1.220 Rural Minor Collector M 94 20.0 26 290 624500 WINBERRY CR RD 1.220 4.420 Rural Minor Collector M 87 17.0 22 240 624500 WINBERRY CR RD 4.420 5.674 Rural Minor Collector M 79 7.0 20 624504 WINBERRY CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.023 Rural Minor Collector L 97 14 624505 WINBERRY CR RD (Y) 0.000 0.027 Rural Minor Collector L 96 14 605100 WINDING WAY 0.000 0.230 Rural Local R 66 12.5 20 525900 WINDWARD WAY 0.000 0.087 Urban Local L 75 11.5 22 90 612600 WINFREY RD 0.000 0.370 Urban Local L 84 18.3 20 800 612600 WINFREY RD 0.370 0.443 Urban Local L 89 12 612610 WINFREY RD (E) 0.000 0.044 Urban Local L 93 29 161600 WINNEBAGO ST 0.000 0.062 Rural Local L 68 12.0 24 155700 WINSLOW AVE 0.000 0.096 Urban Local L 97 11.0 32 155750 WINSLOW AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.041 Urban Local L 93 15.0 32 161900 WINSTON PL 0.000 0.040 Urban Local L 95 7.5 26

Lane County Roads Inventory Road ID

Road Name

BMP

EMP

Functional Class

Terrain

PCI

CBE (in)

Width

ADT Volume

County Roads Inventory B-73

Note: Urban and rural designations are not considered part of a road’s functional class. The urban and rural designation is informational and is used when applying design standards to road improvements.

322600 WISTERIA ST 0.000 0.157 Urban Local L 91 14.0 32 241400 WITCHER GATEWAY RD 0.000 0.100 Rural Local L 84 15.0 16 241400 WITCHER GATEWAY RD 0.100 0.653 Rural Local R 12.0 16 407800 WOLF CR RD 0.000 7.000 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 80 22.3 22 500 407800 WOLF CR RD 7.000 11.594 Rural Major Collector (Fed) M 88 21.0 23 120 530700 WOODLANDS DR 0.000 0.433 Urban Local L 74 9.5 22 200 153300 WOODLANE DR 0.000 0.140 Urban Local L 83 14.0 28 250 123100 WOODSIA LN 0.000 0.270 Rural Local R 16 20 193300 WORTH RD 0.000 0.508 Rural Local R 98 16.0 22 360 114200 YALE LN 0.000 0.110 Rural Local L 95 15.5 20 30 271200 YEAROUS RD 0.000 0.150 Rural Local L 59 10.3 20 60 170400 YENTA AVE 0.000 0.108 Urban Local L 100 14.0 30 170440 YENTA AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.038 Urban Local L 100 32 153900 YOLANDA AVE 0.000 0.465 Urban Local L 100 14.9 36 800 162900 YOLANDA AVE 0.000 0.160 Urban Local L 93 10.0 18 180 162900 YOLANDA AVE 0.160 0.250 Urban Local L 96 13.0 36 162900 YOLANDA AVE 0.250 0.315 Urban Local L 95 13.0 18 153900 YOLANDA AVE 0.465 0.714 Urban Minor Collector L 100 34 2150 153900 YOLANDA AVE 0.830 1.210 Urban Local L 100 14.0 36 900 153910 YOLANDA AVE (CUL) 0.000 0.039 Urban Local L 65 32 104100 YORK LN 0.000 0.190 Rural Local L 87 8.0 32 80 327900 YORK ST 0.000 0.336 Urban Local L 87 14.0 33 420 327960 YORK ST CUL 'A' 0.000 0.028 Urban Local L 83 32 333100 YVONNE ST 0.000 0.042 Urban Local L 96 17.0 28 186700 ZARZAMORA LN 0.000 0.110 Rural Local R 65 24 605900 ZEPHYR WAY 0.000 0.497 Rural Local L 71 12.5 18 490

Appendix C: Lane County Bicycle Map

The Lane County Bicycle Map is available in hard copy only at this time. Please contact Lane County Public Works Engineering, Transportation Planning Section, 682-6936.

Appendix D: Detailed Level of Service Methodology Level of service analysis of the roadway system is necessary for the Lane County Transportation System Plan. This analysis allows assessment of our transportation system’s performance. The methodology for the analysis comes from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Certain assumptions were made for Lane County to reflect specific conditions and move away from more general assumptions. Two-lane rural roadways were assumed for the analysis. Therefore, multi-lane or urban roadways will require separate, more specific analysis techniques to determine level of service. The operational function of two-lane, two-way rural roadways differs from multi-lane highways. Passing opportunities allow drivers to maintain their travel speed and therefore reduce travel time. On two-lane roadways, passing is only possible in the face of opposing traffic. As traffic volumes and passing demand increase, the volumes in the opposing direction also increase, reducing the opportunities to pass. When drivers experience delays due to reduced travel speeds and lack of passing opportunities, the level of service of the roadway deteriorates. The mixture of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream and steep roadway grades also limit passing opportunities and have the effect of reducing the level of service. Level of service (LOS) is graded on a letter scale from A to F. A being the highest level of service and F being the lowest. At LOS A, traffic flows freely, selecting desired travel speeds with ample passing opportunities. At LOS F, traffic flow is forced, the traffic volume has exceeded the capacity of the roadway to handle it and there are no passing opportunities. LOS D is generally considered to be the lowest tolerable level of service for roadways. Roadway designs attempt to operate at LOS D in only the worst case situations and preferably at higher levels of service. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has defined the following definition for level of service:

• LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent.

• LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic

stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desire speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior.

D-1

• LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.

• LOS D represents high-density, but stable, flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver

are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level.

• LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds

are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to “give way” to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because even small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.

• LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists

wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse it and queues begin to form. Operations within the queue are characterized by stopping and starting. Over and over, vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop. Level-of-service F is used to describe operating conditions within the queue, as well as the point of the breakdown. It should be noted, however, that in many cases once free of the queue, traffic may resume to normal conditions quite rapidly.

Level of service analysis for two-lane rural highways is found in Chapter 8 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Rural highways provide both mobility and accessibility for motorists. For major highways, the movement of traffic with a minimum of delay is its principal function. Although mobility is desirable, many highways provide the only means of access to an area. Percent time delay, the primary factor affecting highway level of service, reflects both mobility and accessibility. “Percent time delay is the average percent of the total travel time that all motorists are delayed in platoons while traveling a given section of highway”. The average travel speed and capacity utilization are secondary factors that determine level of service. The average travel speed reflects the mobility function and utilization of capacity reflects the accessibility function of the highway. On two-lane highways, the demand for passing increases as traffic volumes increase. Likewise, opportunities for passing decrease as traffic volumes in the opposite direction increase. When highway or traffic characteristics limit the ability to pass, vehicles are delayed and the level of service of the highway decreases.

D-2

The terrain type is one of several variables that must be defined in order to calculate road segment level of service. This analysis is for rural two-lane road segments and follows the methodology set forth on the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Our inventories currently provide most of the data necessary to determine roadway level of service, except for the terrain type. In order to enrich our inventory and facilitate the calculation of roadway level of service, we must also inventory the terrain type. Terrain type is a factor affecting the roadway conditions and ultimately its operational capacity. The horizontal and vertical alignment of a highway varies due to the topography through which it is constructed. The effects of terrain on traffic flow are most apparent when trucks are included in the traffic stream. In more severe terrain, steeper grades and curves affect the operation of trucks. In particular, significant long grades and sharp curves slow trucks down and limit passing opportunities for cars. The overall effect of the terrain type can be a reduction in the capacity of the roadway and its level of service. A general definition of terrain type from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual follows. • Level Terrain: Any combination of grades and horizontal and vertical alignment

that allows heavy vehicles to maintain approximately the same speed as passenger cars; this terrain generally includes short grades of no more than 1 to 2 percent.

• Rolling Terrain: Any combination of grades and horizontal and vertical alignment

that causes drivers of heavy vehicles to reduce speeds to substantially below those of passenger cars, but does not require operation at crawl speeds for any significant length of time.

• Mountainous Terrain: Any combination of grades and horizontal and vertical

alignment that causes drivers of heavy vehicles to operate at crawl speeds for significant distances or frequent intervals.

Crawl speed is the maximum sustained speed that heavy vehicles can maintain on an extended upgrade of a given percent. With these definitions in hand, we can classify our two-lane roadway segments into one of then three general terrain types (level, rolling, or mountainous). This classification provides the missing link in the calculation of our roadway system’s level of service. Other assumptions about the roadway include: percent of no passing zones in level, rolling and mountainous terrain; directional split of traffic volume; lane width; heavy vehicles in the traffic stream expressed as a percentage of trucks, recreational vehicles and buses; design speed; and the design hour factor relating the proportion of the average daily traffic volume expected to occur in the design hour.

D-3

• The percent of no passing zones are assumed to be 20% in level terrain, 40% in rolling terrain and 60% in mountainous terrain.

• The directional split of traffic is assumed to be 60%/40%. • Lane widths are assumed to be 11 feet. • Heavy vehicles in the traffic stream are estimated to be 5% for trucks, 2% for

recreational vehicles and 0% for buses. • The design speed of the roadway is assumed to be 60 miles per hour. • The design hour factor, K, is assumed to be 0.10 and represents the proportion of

the average daily traffic volume expected to occur in the design hour.

D-4

Rural Two-Lane Highway Level of Service Analysis 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Methodology with assumptions for Lane County The following tables and factors are used to calculate the roadway level of service. The final table, titled “Maximum ADT vs. Level of Service”, contains the maximum daily traffic volumes for each level of service for differing terrain types and roadway widths. The table is used by selecting the terrain type and roadway width. Then, compare the actual daily traffic volume to those in the table. The level of service is determined when the daily traffic volume does not exceed the tabulated volume. (8-1) Service Flow Rate (vph), SFi = 2800(vph) X (v/c)i X fd X fw X fhv

Volume/Capacity, (v/c)i (Table 8-1)

Percent No Passing

LOS Level 20%

Rolling 40%

Mountainous 60%

A 0.12 0.07 0.04 B 0.24 0.19 0.13 C 0.39 0.35 0.23 D 0.62 0.52 0.40 E 1.00 0.92 0.82 F - - -

Directional Split, fd (Table 8-4) (60/40)= 0.94

Lane and Shoulder Width, fw (Table 8-5) (11 foot Lanes)

Usable Shoulder

Width

LOS A-D

LOS

E

Road Width

0 0.49 0.66 18 (factors for 9 ft lanes) 0 0.54 0.71 19 (interpolated between

9&10 ft lanes) 0 0.58 0.75 20 (factors for 10 ft lanes) 0 0.62 0.79 21 (interpolated between

10&11 ft lanes) 0 0.65 0.82 22 1 0.70 0.85 23 (interpolated) 2 0.75 0.88 24 3 0.80 0.90 25 (interpolated) 4 0.85 0.92 26 5 0.89 0.93 27 (interpolated)

>= 6 0.93 0.94 >= 28

D-5

Heavy vehicle factor, fhv

(8-2) fhv = 1 / [1 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-1)] Assume percentage of trucks, PT (5%) = 0.05 Assume percentage of recreational vehicles, PR (2%) = 0.02 Assume percentage of buses, PB (0%) = 0.00

Passenger Car Equivalents, E, for trucks recreational vehicles and buses

(Table 8-6) LOS Level Rolling Mountainous

ET A 2.00 4.00 7.00 B and C 2.20 5.00 10.00 D and E 2.00 5.00 12.00

ER A 2.20 3.20 5.00 B and C 2.50 3.90 5.20 D and E 1.60 3.30 5.20

EB A 1.80 3.00 5.70 B and C 2.00 3.40 6.00 D and E 1.60 2.90 6.50

Heavy vehicle factor, fhv

LOS Level Rolling Mountainous A 0.93 0.84 0.72

B and C 0.92 0.79 0.65 D and E 0.94 0.80 0.61

Peak Hour Factor, PHF (Table 8-3) Level of Service A B C D E

PHF 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.95 1.00 Assume design hour factor, K = 0.10

D-6

Maximum ADT vs. Level of Service

ADTi (vpd) = [Service Flow Rate, SFi (vph)] X PHFi / K Level of Service

Road Width

A

B

C

D

E

Level Terrain 18 1311 2612 4338 7153 16357 19 1432 2852 4736 7810 17472 20 1552 3092 5134 8467 18588 21 1646 3279 5444 8977 19455 22 1739 3466 5754 9488 20322 23 1873 3732 6197 10218 21066 24 2007 3999 6639 10948 21809 25 2141 4265 7082 11678 22305 26 2275 4532 7524 12408 22801 27 2382 4745 7878 12992 23049

>=28 2489 4958 8233 13576 23296 Rolling Terrain

18 688 1792 3373 5113 12826 19 751 1957 3683 5583 13701 20 814 2121 3992 6052 14575 21 864 2249 4233 6418 15255 22 913 2377 4474 6783 15936 23 983 2560 4818 7305 16519 24 1053 2743 5163 7826 17102 25 1123 2926 5507 8348 17490 26 1194 3109 5851 8870 17879 27 1250 3255 6126 9287 18073

>=28 1306 3401 6402 9705 18268 Mountainous Terrain

18 340 1006 1818 2999 8717 19 371 1098 1985 3275 9312 20 403 1190 2152 3550 9906 21 427 1262 2281 3764 10369 22 451 1334 2411 3979 10831 23 486 1436 2597 4285 11227 24 521 1539 2782 4591 11623 25 555 1642 2968 4897 11887 26 590 1744 3153 5203 12152 27 618 1826 3301 5448 12284

>=28 646 1908 3450 5692 12416

D-7

E.1. - 1

Appendix E.1.Public Involvement Plan

Approved by Lane County Planning Commission February 5, 2002

Background

Oregon Revised Statutes and the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 660-012), regarding transportation(Transportation Planning Rule (TPR),) require the county to develop an essentially new TransportationSystem Plan that complies with the state rule. Lane County’s Transportation Plan and Master Road Plannow in effect was adopted in 1980. The 1980 plan is outdated as change has occurred over time andbecause the current state rule was adopted in 1991 and revised in 1993, 1995, 1998, and 1999. LaneCounty’s new Transportation System Plan (TSP) is in the process of development and is nearly ready forpublic review. The TPR also requires code amendments to implement the new TSP. Purpose

The purpose of adopting a new Transportation System Plan and associated code amendments is:• to replace the outdated, 1980 Transportation Plan and Master Road Plan;• to comply with the state Transportation Planning Rule;• to update Lane Code to implement the TSP and make housekeeping improvements;• to improve coordination between transportation system improvements and land use requirements;• to help promote and facilitate the multi-modal transportation needs of county citizens; and• to be a working document for county agencies, other local and state agencies, and developers.

Components of the Public Involvement Plan (PIP)

1. Staff

Staff from the county Engineering Division, Transportation Planning Section, will be responsible forcoordination with other agencies, stakeholders, and the public. This will include coordinating publicmeetings, scheduling Roads Advisory Committee, Lane County Planning Commission and Board ofCounty Commissioners work sessions and hearings, disseminating information to the public in general, aswell as soliciting input, and communicating how comments are considered and dealt with.

2. Agency and Stakeholder Coordination

As the draft becomes ready, staff will request the involvement, review, and comment of agencies andinterest groups whose interests and/or jurisdictions may be affected by the Transportation System Planand associated code amendments. Agencies and interest groups include:

Airports Department of Land Conservation and DevelopmentFire Protection Districts and Emergency Service Providers Gears, a recreational cycling club that frequently uses county roadsIncorporated CommunitiesLane County Land Management DivisionLane County Sheriff’s OfficeLane Transit DistrictOregon Department of TransportationOregon Division of State LandsPort of Siuslaw

E.1. - 2

Recognized Neighborhood Associations throughout Lane CountyRegion 2050 ProjectSchool DistrictsU.S. Army Corps of EngineersUtility and Service providers (telephone, gas, electric, cable, fiber optic, water, sewer)Watershed CouncilsWilliamette Valley Liveability Forum

Notices of meetings and agendas will be sent to all persons who request it. An introductory letter will besent to each of the above contacts requesting information about desired level of involvement. Parties willbe given the option of participating in technical review, only receiving public hearing notices, or notparticipating. Parties will be involved in the process at the level they request. All agency and interestgroup comments will be considered in finalizing the TSP.

3. Interested Parties Mailing List

An interest parties mailing list will be developed from the following sources:a. agency and stakeholder contacts listed aboveb. Board of County Commissioners agenda mailing listc. Lane County Planning Commission agenda mailing listd. Roads Advisory Committee agenda mailing liste. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) mailing listf. any other party requesting to be added to the list.

4. Web Site

Once the draft is ready for public review, it will be published on the county’s web site. The web site willencourage review of and written comment on the draft, provide information and updates about the publicinvolvement process and adoption process, and provide staff contact information. 5. Public Meetings

In 1995 Lane County Public Works held a series of ten public meetings, including one each in Eugeneand Florence and eight in rural communities around the county. No draft was ready for public review atthat time. Instead, staff sought feedback to inform initial preparation of the TSP. A summary of theresults of that effort is attached.

When draft materials are ready for public review, staff will schedule a second round of public meetingsfocusing on the following geographic areas: • Lane County’s coastal areas• McKenzie River area• South Lane County• Lorane area

Meeting notices will be publicized in local newspapers, including information about the web site and howto contact staff for more information.

6. Public Hearings

Lane Code Chapter 12 provides procedural requirements for processing plan amendments. At least onehearing before the Planning Commission and one before the Board of County Commissioners is required

E.1. - 3

prior to adoption. The Roads Advisory Committee public hearing will be scheduled jointly with thePlanning Commission. Hearings will be publicized in the following local county newspapers:

The Register-GuardCottage Grove SentinelSpringfield NewsSiuslaw NewsRiver ReflectionsWest Lane News

After each hearing is concluded, staff will prepare written responses to issues raised. The draft TSP andassociated code amendments will be amended as appropriate based upon direction of appointed andelected officials, and adopted by ordinance.

Appendix E.2.: Summary of 1995 Public Comments

Appendix E.2. - Page 1

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Bicycle/Pedestrian Comments/Requests Dorena Need more Cottage Grove connections to Row River Trail A logical route to provide a connection to the Row River Trail is improving Row River Road to accommodate

bicycles. TSP Project #67 identifies an urban standards project from the Urban Growth Boundary to Row River. Beyond that, the road generally meets minimum design standards and does not necessitate a capital improvement project to bring it up to standard.

Eugene Springfield needs bike/ped facility improvement TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield TSP, was adopted October, 2001. Specific requests not addressed by either TransPlan or the project list contained in the Lane County TSP can be forwarded to the City of Springfield for their consideration.

Eugene Promote Lane County for recreation and livability by creating a network of bicycle routes.

See project list and bicycle/pedestrian section of TSP. Specific comments on gaps in the system are needed to more fully address this comment.

Oakridge President Of Pathfinders Mountain Recreation Consultants; Tour de Lane concept of using timber-access roads, county and state roads linked into a mapped and signed system is a unique attraction to cyclists and a viable economic diversification tool for rural communities. Pave Thompson Creek Rd. in Mapleton to complete a loop that includes North Fork Siuslaw and Elk Tie Road. Paving gravel roads will attract more bicyclists to tour Lane County.

Thompson Creek Rd has a very low traffic volume. Thompson Creek Rd is partly paved and partly gravel, and it did not make the project list due to its very low ADT (40). Elk Tie Rd does not appear to be a county road. Generally the TSP supports bike facility improvements on roadways that access major destinations--roadway improvements designed only for recreational purposes have a lower priority.

Eugene Better/secure bike parking The City of Eugene has bike parking standards. The county TSP does not establish standards for bike parking in the areas under its jurisdiction. This is because the county road system is mostly rural. Bike parking security is more of an urban issue that can/should be addressed by individual city TSP's.

Eugene Also requests access be created for bikes through construction projects so unanticipated detours are not needed.

In most cases, the nature of road construction projects makes this difficult. Signed detour routes are provided as needed.

Eugene Improve bike shoulders, in particular: Crow Rd. is okay but could be a foot wider

A number of rural modernization projects on the TSP project list include the addition of or widening of paved shoulders for bicycle use (see project list). Crow Rd. was not identified for improvements--its width is not considered deficient to the point of necessitating a capital improvement project to bring it up to standard.

Eugene Also supports extension of Fern Ridge bike path and supports having it go under or over Bailey Hill Rd. Bailey Hill is too heavily trafficked at grade for crossing bikes.

The bike path to the Fern Ridge reservoir is identified in TransPlan as Project Number 426 on the Future (beyond 20-years) Project List. Lane County does not have a source of revenue that can be used for "off-right-of-way" improvements. State law restricts the use of the county's Road Fund to only improvements within the public right-of-way. Projects listed in the TSP on Greenhill Road (#10 and 54) and Fir Butte Rd (#118) will improve shoulder bikeways, and in combination with existing shoulder bikeways on Clear Lake Rd provide an on-street bicycle route alternative.

Fall Creek Most roads need better bike/ped facilities in this area, except for Pengra.

In the Fall Creek area, portions of Jasper-Lowell Rd have been identified for modernization, including paved shoulders for non-motorized use (projects 130 and 132). Projects in the Jasper-Lowell area include modernization of Parkway Rd to past Pengra Rd, to milepost 5.0. See the project list map for location.

Lowell Add sidewalks along major routes near schools; In Lowell, sidewalks were added in 2002 to Jasper-Lowell Rd. This provides connectivity with the existing sidewalk that accesses the school. Generally, the County requires sidewalks on its urban arterials and collectors and urban local roads. Improved rural collector roads typically receive paved shoulders for non-motorized travel. Staff considered rural bicycle-pedestrian needs by conducting field surveys of these facilities within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of local destinations, including schools, and made recommendations for improvements. The recommendations were added to the TSP 20-year project list.

Lowell Lowell needs planning assistance with street design and location

County has developed new design standards that apply to county roads within established urban growth boundaries. City standards apply to county roads classified as local roads within urban growth boundaries. As needed, cities may refer to Lane County design standards and/or publications such as AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets as a resource for developing design standards. Planning the location of roadways inside Lowell falls outside the scope of the Lane County TSP.

Appendix E.2. - Page 2

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Lowell Install stop signs and reduce speed limits; there are auto-

ped conflicts on Pengra and Jasper-Lowell This area was upgraded in 2002 with sidewalks, a school crosswalk, and connections to an existing off-road path to increase pedestrian safety. The intersection was studied and the two existing stop signs were found to be adequate. A speed zoning investigation was conducted and a state Speed Zone Order set new speed limits for this vicinity.

Marcola Supports multi-modes; does not support widening of Marcola Rd. but supports widening bike lanes

The County recently modernized Marcola Rd., including widening and the addition of adequate paved shoulders for bike use as well as striped bike lanes through the developed portion of Marcola proper. The section below Parsons Creek Rd was completed in 2002. Construction in Marcola is scheduled for 2003.

Junction City Bicyclists should face traffic Bicycles are legally classified as vehicles and therefore must follow the regulations that govern vehicular movement in Oregon. Marked bike lanes therefore follow the direction of traffic and bicyclists must go with the traffic flow. According to the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, there are greater safety concerns when bicyclists travel against the flow of traffic on a roadway, whether in a marked bike lane or on a paved shoulder.

Eugene Bicycles should be registered to pay for improvements. This is a regulatory policy decision that rests with the Board of County Commissioners. Eugene Bikes are not required to be insured; only motorized

vehicles are. Also, registrations would not cover costs of needed improvements. Instead, tax bike purchases like tubes and tires. Finally bicycles benefit everyone by reducing congestion, not using energy resources, and not using parking spaces. These benefits should be rewarded rather than taxed, although taxing at a slight rate would probably be hardly noticeable.

See response above.

County Road Improvements Cheshire Improve 6th St. in Cheshire 6th St in Cheshire does not appear on maps, and does not appear to be a county road. Cheshire Widen High Pass and Dorsey Ln. as well for bike/ped

facilities Dorsey Lane is identified in the TSP project list for rural modernization, including the addition of paved shoulders to accommodate non-motorized travel (project# 110). High Pass Rd at Cheshire may be considered if additional demand for it is heard from the public.

Cheshire Replace bridges with culverts Generally, the environmental impact of replacing bridges with culverts is high and not supported by the county as a general practice. Lane County bridges, in general, are in good condition with very few having sufficiency ratings below 50 (9 out of 402). With this in mind, developing a program to replace bridges that are structurally and functionally sufficient is hard to justify for the public expense.

Dunes City Clear Lake Rd. needs bike/walking lane The section from Hwy 101 to Jensen Lane was improved by the County in 2001. The remaining section from Jensen Lane to Canary Rd is programmed in the CIP and scheduled for improvements within the next couple of years.

Eugene Supports alternative modes; need more shoulders on high speed roads

See project list. A number of county roads are identified for modernization and shoulder improvements. Also see Lane County Road Design Standards, which provide for adequate shoulders on high-volume roadways when designing reconstruction and modernization projects..

Eugene Promote bike safety; wider shoulders on Lorane Highway Lorane Hwy was widened from Chambers St. to Spencer Creek in 1998. Variable width shoulders were provided from Chambers to McBeth. Full width shoulders were constructed from McBeth to Spencer Creek Rd. All other sections of Lorane Hwy have full width shoulders that meet standards.

Eugene From bicyclists standpoint, road surfaces are superb-smooth and well drained. Shoulders need to be wide enough and maintained. Lorane Hwy, Coburg Rd., Jasper Road, Perkins road need safety improvements.

See Lorane Hwy response above. Bike lanes were added on Coburg Road north of Eugene from Kinney Loop to Armitage Park as part of an urban standards project in 2000. Jasper Road is under the jurisdiction of the City of Springfield as well as the State Department of Transportation. The respective agencies must be contacted regarding these facilities. Farther out from the metro area, Jasper-Lowell Rd is a county facility, and there are two projects identified in the Lane County project list (in addition to improvements made in 2002) that will provide paved shoulders for bicycle use (projects# 130, 132). Perkins Rd from the Veneta city limits to Central Rd is identified for the

Appendix E.2. - Page 3

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response

addition of bike facilities in the TSP (project# 14). Eugene Improve bike shoulders, in particular: Territorial south of

Crow Rd., Crow Rd. is okay but could be a foot wider; Territorial Hwy is a state facility and out of Lane County's jurisdiction. However, staff has noted insufficient shoulders on Territorial and has included recommendations to the state for shoulder improvements in the TSP. Crow Rd currently has 3-4' shoulders and, as such, does not necessitate a capital improvement project to bring it up to standard.

Eugene Wants wider shoulders on Sheffler Rd. Sheffler Rd was noted as having inadequate width as part of the county's road needs assessment. However, the road was within 4 feet of having an adequate minimum width and was sufficient with regard to the other assessment criteria. Since the roadway is otherwise in good condition and its ADT of 950 is not considered high, the road was not recommended to the project list.

Fall Creek Relieve traffic on Jasper-Lowell Rd., which is too narrow; See previous staff responses related to Jasper-Lowell Rd. Jasper-Lowell Rd is identified for modernization in the Fall Creek area (projects# 130, 132). In terms of relieving traffic, Lane County supports providing bicycle facilities in these projects and encourages use of alternate modes of transportation along this route.

Fall Creek Pengra needs realignment; better directional signage at Pengra and Jasper-Lowell

Road improvements were constructed at this intersection in 2002. There are currently no plans or identified need for realignment of Pengra.

Vida Put in Bear Creek Bridge From 1988 to 1994, the County undertook an effort to study and build a new bridge crossing over the McKenzie River to serve the Goodpasture Road area. In January 1990, the Board of Commissioners selected Bear Creek as the preferred location for the new bridge. The subsequent land use plan amendment was appealed by the Pacific Rivers Council and the Oregon Guides and Packers to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the application back to the Board of County Commissioners who then elected to remove the project from further consideration.

Eugene From bicyclists standpoint, road surfaces are superb-smooth and well drained. Shoulders need to be wide enough and maintained. Lorane Hwy, Coburg Rd., Perkins road need safety improvements.

Comment addressed above.

Eugene Add shoulders to Dillard, Lorane, and routes to Veneta/Elmira

Dillard Rd is identified for modernization and shoulder improvements in the project list (project# 86). Lorane Hwy has been improved. Some routes in the Veneta/Elmira area have been included in the project list, namely Perkins, Central, and Suttle Rds (projects# 14, 120, 134).

Eugene As roads are improved/resurfaced, add 3-4' shoulders for bikes. Coburg Rd. for example needs wider shoulders.

See County Road Design Standards. The standards for the rural collector system provide for a minimum 4' shoulder on higher ADT roads. Only in lower ADT and mountainous terrain settings do the standards require lesser or in some cases no shoulders as the minimum. Coburg Rd from the City of Coburg to Eugene has shoulders and bike lanes that meet standards. See project# 82 in the TSP for the northern most section of Coburg Rd.

County Road Maintenance Eugene Stop roadside spraying. The County has an Integrated Vegetation Management Program (IVM) that uses a combination of manual,

mechanical, chemical, and biological methods to manage vegetation along roadsides. Specific comments can be forwarded to the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee (meets monthly) or the Board of County Commissioners.

Eugene Promote bike safety clean gravel from shoulders The County currently sweeps about 4-5 times a year. Increasing this frequency is a matter of allocation of resources. Please comment if you feel a higher frequency of sweepings is necessary.

Lorane Increase safety for bikes/peds on high speed roads; keep bike lanes swept

The county strives to provide adequate bike facilities (either marked lanes or paved shoulders) in its modernization projects on higher speed collector and arterial roads. Please identify specific roadways with perceived safety problems. The County currently sweeps about 4-5 times a year. Increasing this frequency is a matter of allocation of resources. Please comment if you feel a higher frequency of sweepings is necessary.

Appendix E.2. - Page 4

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Environment and Transportation Cheshire Develop an environmentally sound plan with public/private

input to plan for less gas and more people. The comment is taken to mean "reduce reliance on the automobile". This is a concept embraced in the state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). In developing the Lane County TSP, our goal is to be in compliance with the TPR.

Eugene Protect wetlands better during road projects. The TSP includes policy language stating that Lane County shall follow all state and federal environmental regulations, and this has historically been the county's practice. Each project brings its own set of circumstances regarding environmental impact. The goal stated in the TSP is to meet the requirements of Federal and State law through coordination and authorization by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Additional discussion regarding this topic is found in the TSP Transportation and Land Use chapter.

Eugene Concerned about road encroachment in wetland areas and too many roads.

See response above.

EWEB Evaluate hazardous materials transportation, especially on McKenzie Hwy. Focus is on shipment of persistent toxic materials that are hard to remove from water.

Movement of hazardous materials on state highways is regulated by the Oregon DOT. Interstate movements of hazardous materials is regulated by the US DOT. McKenzie Hwy is an ODOT facility.

State Highway Maintenance Elmira Need more signage advertising the coast in Eugene This comment relates more to economic development than the transportation system, and is beyond the

scope of the county's TSP. Florence Hwy 126 needs phones and turnouts Hwy 126 is a state facility and not under the jurisdiction of Lane County. ODOT should be contacted regarding

this issue. South of Florence

Need striping more often (it wears off); favors segregated bike/ped lanes

Separate multi-use paths are typically not provided with county road projects or as a stand-alone project, due to constitutional limits on the use of road funds.

Vida Hwy 126 needs emergency turnouts Hwy 126 is a state facility and not under Lane County jurisdiction. ODOT should be contacted regarding this issue.

State Highway Improvements Highway 36Cheshire Need shoulders on Hwy 36; widen and resurface Territorial;

better maintenance of road and ditches on Territorial While state highways are not under the planning jurisdiction of Lane County, staff has created a partial list of recommendations for state highway improvements based upon a bike-pedestrian needs assessment of facilities near local destinations (such as schools and stores) in rural unincorporated communities. Highway 36 has been recommended for shoulder improvements in Cheshire. Territorial Hwy in Crow and Lorane has been recommended for shoulder improvements. These recommendations were given to ODOT and are discussed in the TSP Needs Assessment chapter.

Cheshire Safer access for bikes/peds on Hwy 36, Territorial Rd.; put hwy fees back into this area

See above comment.

Junction City Need more shoulders and improved safety on Hwy 36 near Blachly, Territorial, Laurence. Repair chipped blacktop edges; replace missing crushed rock on shoulders. Territorial too narrow for modern vehicles.

See also above comment. Hwy 36 near Blachly has relatively low traffic volumes, and was therefore not on the list of recommended improvements that was given to ODOT. Territorial in Crow and Lorane has been recommended for shoulder improvements. Safety and operational concerns may also be addressed to ODOT

Highway 101 Dunes City Need wider shoulders for bikes/peds and emergencies

north and south of Florence; need more traffic lights on Hwy 101

As part of an assessment of bike-ped facilities serving local destinations in unincorporated communities, Hwy 101 at Glenada was recommended to ODOT for shoulder improvements. The assessment was limited to a few sections of state roads and mainly focused on county facilities. Safety and operational concerns may also be addressed to ODOT.

Appendix E.2. - Page 5

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response So. Of Florence No traffic lights at crosswalks on Hwy 101; increase visibility

of crosswalks with vivid colors; need protected turns; more emphasis on pedestrian facilities

See above comment.

Hwy 126 Florence-Eugene Highway Dunes City keep Hwy 126 2-lane as a scenic highway Hwy 126 is a state facility and not under Lane County jurisdiction. ODOT should be contacted regarding this

issue. Currently, Hwy 126 is not officially designated as a scenic route. Junction City Widen W. 11th to 4 lanes to Veneta W. 11th (Hwy 126W) to Veneta is a state facility and not under Lane County jurisdiction. ODOT should be

contacted regarding this issue. West 11th, the urban section of Hwy 126W, is identified for improvements in the TransPlan project list--the TSP for the Eugene-Springfield metro area.

Veneta Need a bypass between Eugene and Veneta; not Hwy 126 because of riparian areas; proposes different route

A bypass project is not included in the TSP. More support and analysis would be needed to warrant inclusion of this in the TSP.

Veneta W. 11th is insufficient for large traffic volumes. Hwy 126 should be in CIP. To avoid riparian areas, construct bypass.

Hwy 126 is a state facility and therefore not considered for inclusion in the county CIP. A bypass project is not included in the TSP. West 11th, the urban section of Hwy 126 W, is identified for improvements in the TransPlan project list--the TSP for the Eugene-Springfield metro area.

Eugene Promote bike safety; wider shoulders on W. 11th, Hwy 99/99W; clean gravel from shoulders

Hwy 99 is recommended to ODOT in the TSP for shoulder improvements in Goshen and Saginaw to allow better bicycle access to local destinations. West 11th is identified for urban standards (including bike facilities) from Greenhill to Danebo in TransPlan. This project has been incorporated into the TSP project list.

Eugene left turn from W.11th to Beltline is hazardous. W. 11th at Beltline is a state facility and not under Lane County jurisdiction. ODOT should be contacted regarding this issue.

Eugene add shoulders to routes to Veneta/Elmira Some routes in the Veneta/Elmira area have been included in the project list, namely Perkins, Central, and Suttle Rds. See project list for descriptions.

Territorial Highway Eugene Improve bike shoulders, in particular: Territorial south of

Crow Rd., Crow Rd. is okay but could be a foot wider; Comment addressed above.

Lorane Territorial needs shoulders; better brush removal Comment addressed above. Eugene From bicyclists standpoint, road surfaces are superb-

smooth and well drained. Shoulders need to be wide enough and maintained. Highway 99, Territorial, , Jasper Road need safety improvements.

Comment addressed above.

Highway 99 Goshen-CreswellEugene add shoulders to Hwy 99 (Goshen-Creswell) Comment addressed above. Hwy 126 McKenzie Highway Vida By-pass Hwy 126 E. with a major highway that avoids

riparian areas; Comment addressed above.

Eugene Add shoulders to McKenzie Hwy The TSP recommends to ODOT shoulder improvements along McKenzie Hwy. See ODOT STIP for identified projects along McKenzie Hwy. The county encourages the completion of such projects.

Other State Eugene Supports alternative modes; need more shoulders on high

speed roads Comment addressed above.

Florence I-5 is getting congested Multi-jurisdictional efforts are underway to promote high speed rail serving the north-south Willamette Valley corridor as an alternative to driving. Public support for high-speed rail improvements assists in addressing this issue. Future I-5 corridor planning will focus on the highway--TransPlan includes improvement projects and studies for I-5 in the Eugene-Springfield area.

Appendix E.2. - Page 6

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Transit (LTD Buses, Vans, Paratransit) Dorena "From a rural person"; need transit to Cottage Grove and

Creswell from Eugene LTD now offers bus service to Cottage Grove with stop in Creswell, terminating at Eugene Station and also servicing UO and LCC.

Eugene Transit to Cottage Grove and Florence; downtown trolleys; rail to Oakridge

LTD bus service is now offered to Cottage Grove, though not to Florence. Limited funding currently restricts the degree to which bus and new rail service can be provided throughout the county. Current Bus Rapid Transit initiatives will help in providing fluid transit service between major destinations in Eugene-Springfield.

Veneta Need more frequent buses for Veneta, Junction City, and service to Cottage Grove; supports bike paths and more transit

See above comment.

Vida Transit service needed for Cottage Grove See above comment. Junction City More LTD routes through Junction City and Harrisburg; See above comment. Lorane Commute service between Eugene, Creswell, Cottage

Grove, Florence, Albany, Corvallis See above comment.

Lorane Vanpool or minivan between Lorane and Eugene via Territorial, Lorane Highway, Bailey Hill Rd; emphasize alternative modes to private auto;

Amount of travel between Lorane and Eugene may not warrant operation of a minivan. Carpool matches may be sought via Commuter Solutions, the regional transportation demand management program at LTD. Commuter Solutions promotes use of alternative modes. Alternative modes are encouraged through the County's CIP with the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on applicable roads.

Lorane Bus service to Lorane that has bike racks See above comments. Marcola Need bus/van service to Marcola See above comments. Dunes City Expand FACT to Mapleton and Dunes City Refer request to City of Florence. So. Of Florence Help Florence form an independent transportation district This request should be directed to the City of Florence and the county Board of Commissioners. The

Commissioners and City will also receive copies of these comments as part of the TSP adoption process. So. Of Florence More transit to rural areas; need to expand transit in

general, including Deadwood, Canary, Ada, Dunes City; extend dial-a-ride service.

Funding for expanded transit is limited in part by the ability of communities to pay for the service. Lower demand in outlying areas also contributes to decisions not to serve these areas. The Public Transportation section of the TSP discusses this issue in more detail. Also contact LTD for additional information.

Florence West Lane needs bus service to/from Eugene; Transit between Florence, Mapleton, and Eugene is needed; more safe rural bus service

See above comments.

Florence Need transit between Florence and Eugene; interested in statewide rail system; increasing need for special transportation services for elderly

See above comments.

Eugene Extend bus to Dillard Rd; bike racks on buses; better transit

schedules See above comments.

Eugene Promote bike safety and transit; more bike racks and spaces on buses

See above comments.

Eugene Supports tram downtown See above comments. Lorane Transit to airport See above comments. Make mass transit available to rural areas; offer "maxi-taxi"

for a fee to rural areas; See above comments.

Appendix E.2. - Page 7

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response Rail, Passenger and Freight Cheshire Promote multi modes including "super trains". The Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC has been nationally authorized under the High-

Speed Rail Investment Act. High-speed trains may be provided on this route as improvements are made to the tracks. Population growth and continued political support should improve and expand existing rail service in this direction.

Vida Supports monorail or trolley in Eugene-Springfield. These particular transportation options are not advocated in the TSP and are not currently included in the Eugene-Springfield TransPlan. Request should be directed at the respective cities.

Eugene Downtown trolleys; rail to Oakridge These particular transportation options are not advocated in the TSP and are not currently included in the Eugene-Springfield TransPlan. Requests should be directed at the respective cities.

Eugene Offer more modes of travel, like rail and transit. Passenger rail service has improved out of Eugene north to Portland and beyond. Lane County supports the mission of LTD and its provision of local transit service.

Lorane Commute service between Eugene, Creswell, Cottage Grove, Florence, Albany, Corvallis; light rail between Eugene, Springfield, Junction City, Veneta;

Commute service may be sought through LTD's Commuter Solutions program. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system being developed for Eugene-Springfield mimics a light-rail line at lower cost. No known plans to extend this service to JC or Veneta at this time.

Lorane Improve and expand freight rail to reduce truck traffic Freight truck traffic will only increase in the future, and diverting additional freight to rail is a cogent idea. Expanding rail to the dispersed settlements in Oregon would be highly capital intensive, and forces such as market demand would primarily drive these types of decisions.

Lorane Rapid transit to Portland The Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC has been nationally authorized under the High-Speed Rail Investment Act. High-speed trains may be provided on this route as improvements are made to the tracks. Population growth and continued political support should improve and expand existing rail service in this direction.

Marcola Supports train on I-5 corridor. The Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC has been nationally authorized under the High-Speed Rail Investment Act. High-speed trains may be provided on this route as improvements are made to the tracks. Population growth and continued political support should improve and expand existing rail service in this direction.

Vida Supports high speed rail to Seattle The Pacific Northwest corridor from Eugene to Vancouver BC has been nationally authorized under the High-Speed Rail Investment Act. High-speed trains may be provided on this route as improvements are made to thetracks. Population growth and continued political support should improve and expand existing rail service in this direction.

Land Use and Transportation Dunes City Move commercial uses off of Hwy 101 to move in-town

traffic to smaller roads; beautify; require landscaped parking and no parking in front

See Dunes City Comprehensive Plan and development ordinance. Landscaping and parking requirement suggestions may be made to the City for their consideration in future ordinance changes.

Eugene Better/secure bike parking; land use planning to reduce distance between work/home/shopping

This issue is primarily urban in nature and should be directed to the City.

Eugene Supports land use planning that reduces VMT. See TransPlan, which includes strategies to minimize VMT in metro area. The County follows state land use requirements that limit development in rural areas. Concentrating development in well-designed cities should, in effect, reduce VMT per capita.

Transportation Demand Management Eugene Create incentives for transit use and disincentives for

private motor vehicle use, such as through taxes, education, employer incentives. Explore solar powered

The Transportation Planning Rule, which the county's TSP must comply, promotes alternatives to private motor vehicle use. Transit and transportation demand management (TDM) are promoted and supported in the county TSP. For example, TDM is promoted as a mitigation option as part of Traffic Impact Analysis

Appendix E.2. - Page 8

SUMMARY OF 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Residence Comment Staff Response

mass transit. requirements related to proposed development. See Chapter 4.1 in the draft TSP. Lorane Provide employer financial incentives to encourage

alternatives to single occupancy vehicles and disincentives to single occupancy vehicle use.

LTD's commuter solutions program provides opportunities for employers to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use. See also above comments.

Miscellaneous Transportation Policy Issues Siuslaw RFPD Concerned about road grades in residential areas. Maximum grades on county roads are established in the draft road design standards that are being

considered for adoption as part of the TSP. Cheshire Require seatbelts on school buses This issue is beyond the scope of the County TSP. Junction City Raise age for drivers permits and licenses Junction City Use prisoners for highway maintenance Currently, the Lane County Sheriff's Office does operate work crews for some highway maintenance tasks.

For more information, please contact the Lane County Sheriff's Office. For State facilities, the TSP does not address this comment as it is outside the scope of the document.

Lorane Be aware of equestrian use of roads While no longer a prominent use of the roads, equestrian travel is known to exist in part of the county. Shoulder areas can usually accommodate this use. In addition, some state and county parks are developed with equestrian facilities.

Appendix F: Lane County General Plan Chart

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LANE COUNTY (includes all adopted gneral and detailed plans)

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PLAN

(includes all land within plan boundaries)

SMALL AREA PLANS Examples: - Willakenzie Plan - Whiteaker Plan

SPECIAL PURPOSE PLANS Examples: - 19th & Agate Special Area Study- Fairmount/U of O Special Area

Study

PLANS FOR SMALL INCORPORATED CITIES (areas within Urban Growth

Boundaries) - COTTAGE GROVE - CRESWELL - OAKRIDGE - WESTFIR - LOWELL - COBURG - JUNCTION CITY - VENETA - FLORENCE - DUNES CITY

SINGLE PURPOSE PLAN (may include metro, rural,

and small city areas)

Examples: - Transportation System Plan - Solid Waste Management Plan - Parks and Open Space Plan - Coastal Resources Management Plan

LANE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (includes all unincorporated lands beyond

Metropolitan Plan Boundary and small city Urban Growth Boundaries)

- Plan Policies - Coastal Plan Diagram - Inland Plan Diagram

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LANE COUNTY(includes all adopted general and detailed plans)

Appendix G: Needs Assessment Data The needs assessment data that follows consists of a point rating system assigned to collector and arterial segments found to be “deficient” in any one of the assessment criteria categories. Categories left blank indicate no or minimal deficiency. The data shown here will change over time due to normal wear or road improvement projects that may increase width, CBE, PCI, and safety. Operating conditions expressed in ADT and LOS data may change as the population grows and new development occurs. Each assessment criterion was weighted based upon its importance, and points were also allocated for each criterion not meeting a minimum reasonable threshold. Thus a road segment accumulated points based upon its “deficiencies” and based upon the importance of each deficiency criterion. For instance, Crash Rate, which is an indicator of roadway safety, is weighted as the most important criterion with eight points, while Pavement Condition was weighted the least important with one point. A road would receive the number of points indicated below if the associated deficiency threshold was met. The Assessment Criteria and associated thresholds and points are shown in the following table. Please see Chapter 6.3, Needs Assessment Methodology and Results, for more detailed explanation.

Criteria Deficiency Threshold Points Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Less than 50 points (see Chapter 6.3) 1 Crushed Base Eqivalent (CBE) 12” to less than 16” 2 Road Width Between 1’ and 4’ less than the standard 3 CBE Less than 12” 4 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Greater than 5,000 for urban roads and 10,000 for rural

roads, for 2020 projection 5

Level of Service (LOS) E or worse in 2017 6 Road Width Greater than or equal to 4’ less than the standard 7 Crash Rate Greater than 2.0 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled 8 Acronyms for Needs Assessment Data: BMP - Beginning Mile Point EMP - Ending Mile Point Terrain, L - Level Terrain, R - Rolling Terrain, M - Mountainous CIP - Capital Improvement Program PCI - Pavement Condition Index CBE - Crushed Base Equivalent ADT - Average Daily Traffic LOS - Level of Service

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

06TH AVE WEST 346500 0.520 0.850 L 4 4 18TH AVE EAST & DEAL 347500 0.000 0.300 L 7 7 18TH AVE WEST 347300 0.000 0.854 L 7 7 23RD ST 180900 0.000 0.252 L 7 7 30TH AVE 185000 0.100 1.500 R Bid List 5 5 31ST ST / 28TH ST 192500 0.542 0.905 L 4 7 11 ALVADORE RD 361500 0.000 3.587 L 7 7 ALVADORE RD 361500 3.587 6.100 L 2 7 9 APPLEGATE TRAIL 362200 0.000 2.584 R 7 7 ARROWHEAD ST 320100 0.000 0.230 L 7 7 ASPEN ST 167500 0.000 0.181 L 7 7 ASPEN ST 167500 0.337 0.441 L 7 7 AWBREY LN 344000 0.000 0.170 L 4 7 11 AWBREY LN 344000 0.170 1.340 L 4 7 11 BAILEY HILL RD 121500 3.113 4.616 R 3 3 BAILEY HILL RD 121500 2.498 3.010 R 6 6 BAILEY HILL RD 121500 3.010 3.113 R 3 3 BARSTOW AVE 320900 0.000 0.258 L 4 4 BEACON DR EAST 315000 0.000 0.740 L 1 7 8 BEACON DR EAST 315000 0.740 0.749 L 7 7 BEACON DR WEST 315600 1.000 1.172 L 7 7 BEACON DR WEST 315600 0.000 0.154 L Bid List 7 7 BEACON DR WEST 315600 0.154 1.000 L 7 7 BEAR CR RD 602800 0.000 2.160 R 7 7 BERNHARDT CR RD 503400 0.000 0.063 M 4 3 7 BERNHARDT CR RD 503400 0.063 6.985 M 4 3 7 BERNHARDT CR RD 503400 6.985 7.058 M 1 4 3 8 BIG FALL CR RD 624000 7.550 9.110 M 4 4 BIG FALL CR RD 624000 0.000 7.550 M 7 7 BLACKFOOT AVE 323000 0.300 0.806 L 2 2 BLUE RIVER DR 110500 0.000 1.555 R 7 7 BODENHAMER RD 427200 0.000 1.062 L 7 7 BODENHAMER RD 427200 1.062 1.345 L 7 7 BOLTON HILL RD 406200 0.000 1.171 R 2 7 9 BOLTON HILL RD 406200 1.171 3.254 R 4 4 BRICE CR RD 247000 0.000 2.150 M 4 3 7 BRICE CR RD 247000 3.340 8.122 M Bid List 4 4

Needs Assessment Data

G-2

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

BRIDGE ST 106000 0.006 0.190 L 4 7 11 BRIDGE ST 106000 0.190 0.295 L 7 7 BRIGGS HILL RD 409000 0.000 2.500 R 4 3 7 BRIGGS HILL RD 409000 2.500 4.401 R 2 7 9 CALLA ST 329600 0.000 0.173 L 7 7 CAMAS SWALE RD 213000 0.743 7.010 R 7 7 CAMAS SWALE RD 213000 0.550 0.743 R 7 7 CANARY RD 532000 0.000 0.686 R 7 7 CENTRAL RD 428800 0.000 1.920 L 2 7 9 CENTRAL RD 428800 1.920 4.990 R 2 7 9 CLEAR LAKE RD 534000 0.142 2.290 R Bid List 2 7 9 CLEAR LAKE RD 534000 2.290 4.233 R Bid List 7 7 CLOVERDALE RD 601000 0.000 3.276 L 7 7 COBURG RD 150000 7.416 8.784 L 7 7 COBURG RD 150000 8.784 12.883 L 7 7 COBURG RD NO 161000 0.000 0.218 L 7 7 COBURG RD NO 161000 0.218 1.820 L 7 7 COBURG RD NO 161000 1.820 4.115 L 7 7 COTTAGE GROVE RES RD 273000 0.000 4.583 R 3 3 CREST DR 125200 0.000 0.360 R 7 7 CREST DR 125200 0.360 0.623 R 7 7 CREST DR 125200 0.623 0.873 R 7 7 CROCKER RD 319900 0.000 0.580 L 2 3 5 CURRIN CONN 252400 0.000 0.071 L 7 7 DANSTROM RD 602000 0.000 0.135 L 4 7 11 DEADWOOD CR RD 514000 8.968 9.989 M 4 3 7 DEADWOOD CR RD 514000 9.989 11.723 M 4 7 11 DEADWOOD CR RD 514000 5.410 7.180 M 4 4 DEERHORN RD 105800 0.000 3.680 M 2 2 DEERHORN RD 105800 3.680 7.206 M 4 3 7 DELTA HWY SO 174000 0.000 1.804 L Bid List 5 5 DELTA HWY SO NE RAMP 174005 0.000 0.195 L 5 5 DELTA HWY SO SW RAMP 174003 0.000 0.245 L 7 5 12 DELTA RD 861000 0.130 Bridge L Bid List 0 DEMMING RD 400800 0.000 1.000 R 4 7 11 DEMMING RD 400800 1.000 1.120 R 4 7 11 DEXTER RD 611400 0.000 1.500 L 7 7

Needs Assessment Data

G-3

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

DIBBLEE LN 325900 0.000 0.210 L 4 7 11 DILLARD RD 187000 0.000 3.850 R 7 7 DIVISION AVE 130800 0.000 1.040 L Bid List 0 DORSEY LN 361200 0.000 1.542 L 7 7 EAST MAPLETON RD 503000 0.317 1.000 M 2 2 EAST MAPLETON RD 503000 1.000 3.950 M 4 4 EDENVALE RD 606800 0.000 1.000 R 4 7 11 EDENVALE RD 606800 2.000 3.273 L 4 7 11 EDENVALE RD 606800 1.000 2.000 R 4 7 11 ELLMAKER RD 429800 0.000 1.114 L 2 7 9 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 2.960 4.883 L 4 7 11 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 1.050 2.000 R 7 7 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 0.000 0.500 L 4 4 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 0.500 1.050 L 4 4 ENTERPRISE RD 607500 2.000 2.960 R 2 7 9 FERGUSON RD 350800 0.000 3.420 L 7 7 FERGUSON RD 350800 6.320 8.150 L 4 7 11 FERGUSON RD 350800 8.150 9.260 L 4 7 11 FERGUSON RD 350800 9.260 10.700 R 4 7 11 FIR BUTTE RD 427300 0.000 2.706 R 7 7 FISHER RD 428600 1.120 1.200 R 7 7 FLECK RD 407400 0.000 2.512 L 2 7 9 FRANKLIN BLVD EAST 182500 0.000 1.121 L 7 5 12 FRANKLIN RD 383600 0.000 2.522 R 7 7 GAME FARM RD NO 171000 0.610 1.690 L Bid List 7 5 12 GAME FARM RD SO 152800 0.000 0.910 L 7 5 8 20 GAROUTTE RD 255500 0.000 2.507 R 2 3 5 GOLDSON RD 363600 0.000 0.500 R 3 3 GOLDSON RD 363600 0.500 1.556 R 3 3 GONYEA RD 185400 0.000 0.595 L 6 6 GOWDYVILLE RD 264500 0.183 1.890 R 7 7 GOWDYVILLE RD 264500 0.000 0.183 R 7 7 GREEN HILL RD 327000 5.072 5.815 L 7 7 GREEN HILL RD 427000 2.818 3.820 L 7 7 GREEN HILL RD 427000 3.820 5.072 L 7 7 GREEN HILL RD 427000 1.869 2.818 L 7 7 GROVE ST 133100 0.164 0.528 L 2 2

Needs Assessment Data

G-4

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

HALL RD 362500 0.000 1.500 L 2 7 9 HALL RD 362500 1.990 3.820 R 2 2 HALL RD 362500 1.500 1.990 R 2 2 HALL RD 362500 4.560 5.880 R 4 7 11 HALL RD 362500 5.880 6.800 R 4 7 11 HALL RD 362500 6.800 7.158 R 4 3 7 HAMM RD 213200 4.360 5.607 M 2 2 HARVEY RD 211400 0.000 0.260 L 4 7 11 HARVEY RD 211400 0.260 0.861 L 4 7 11 HARVEY RD 211400 0.861 1.377 L 7 7 HAYDEN BR RD 181000 0.000 1.452 L 7 7 HAYDEN BR WAY 163500 0.142 0.612 L 5 5 HECETA BEACH RD 525000 0.000 1.885 R 2 3 5 HENDERSON AVE NO 181500 0.000 0.391 L 4 7 11 HIGH PASS RD 345500 0.000 1.514 L 7 7 HIGH PASS RD 345500 1.514 4.080 L 7 7 HIGH PASS RD 345500 4.080 7.530 R 7 7 HIGH PASS RD 345500 7.530 11.000 M 4 3 7 HIGH PASS RD 345500 11.000 12.840 M 4 7 11 HIGH PASS RD 345500 16.540 17.224 M 4 3 7 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 615400 0.000 0.111 R 7 8 15 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 615400 0.111 0.947 R 7 7 HIGH PRAIRIE RD 615400 2.246 6.619 R 7 7 HILL RD 195600 0.000 4.572 R 7 7 HOLDEN CR LN 108000 0.000 0.157 L 2 7 9 HORN LN 136000 0.000 0.928 L 2 7 9 HOWARD AVE 134200 0.000 0.956 L 2 3 5 HOWE LN 217400 0.000 1.230 R 3 3 HUNSAKER LN-BEAVER ST 332000 0.000 0.060 L 1 5 6 HUNSAKER LN-BEAVER ST 332000 0.060 1.141 L 7 5 12 HUSTON RD SO 430800 0.524 1.070 L 4 7 11 HUSTON RD SO 430800 0.272 0.524 L 4 7 11 HYACINTH ST 329800 0.530 0.664 L 7 7 INDIAN CR RD 513000 5.500 8.771 M 2 2 IRVING RD 326800 1.380 1.500 L 7 5 12 IRVING RD 326800 1.230 1.360 L 5 5 IRVINGTON DR 319500 0.000 1.412 L Bid List 1 2 7 5 15

Needs Assessment Data

G-5

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

IRVINGTON DR 319500 1.430 1.479 L Bid List 7 5 12

JASPER RD EXTENSION 199400 L Bid List 0 JASPER RD EXTENSION 199400 L Bid List 0 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 3.874 5.000 R 1 7 8 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 5.000 6.118 R 7 7 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 6.118 8.574 R 7 7 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 9.606 10.399 R 3 3 JASPER-LOWELL RD 622000 1.200 1.600 R 4 4 JEANS RD 403600 1.185 3.000 L 7 7 KALMIA ST 329400 0.000 0.070 L 7 7 KING RD EAST 111800 0.000 1.038 M 2 2 KING RD EAST 111800 3.168 4.012 M 2 2 KNIGHT RD 433000 0.000 1.440 R 3 3 LAKE DR 135200 0.130 0.430 L 4 3 7 LAKE DR 135200 0.000 0.130 L 7 7 LATHAM RD 269900 0.000 0.965 L 7 7 LAURA ST 193900 0.000 0.273 L 7 7 LINGO LN 348000 0.000 1.896 L Bid List 2 3 5 LITTLE FALL CR RD 623000 0.000 1.500 M 2 2 LITTLE FALL CR RD 623000 1.500 3.678 M 2 2 LOST CR RD 612000 0.000 0.669 R 3 3 LOST CR RD 612000 1.876 4.035 R 3 3 LYNX HOLLOW RD 219200 0.000 2.790 R 3 3 MAPLE CR RD 532600 0.000 0.592 M 3 3 MARCOLA RD 190000 5.818 11.550 L Bid List 7 7 MARCOLA RD 190000 11.550 16.080 R Bid List 7 7 MARCOLA RD 190000 5.818 11.550 L Bid List 7 7 MCBETH RD 127300 0.000 3.604 R 7 7 MCFARLAND RD 613000 0.000 1.582 R 2 2 MCKENZIE VIEW DR 159500 0.000 3.190 R 7 7 MCKENZIE VIEW DR 159500 3.190 6.099 R 7 7 MEADOWVIEW RD EAST 344600 0.000 1.162 L 4 7 11 MEADOWVIEW RD WEST 344300 0.000 1.446 L 7 7 MEADOWVIEW RD WEST 344300 1.446 2.952 L 7 7 MERCER LAKE RD 524000 0.000 1.080 M 4 4 MILL RD 610200 0.000 0.249 L Bid List 2 2 MILLIRON RD EAST 345000 0.000 0.402 L Bid List 4 3 8 15

Needs Assessment Data

G-6

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

MOSBY CR RD 250000 1.204 1.597 L 7 7 MOSBY CR RD 250000 1.610 1.632 L 7 7 MUNSEL LAKE RD 526000 0.000 0.382 L 2 7 9 MUNSEL LAKE RD 526000 0.382 0.500 L 2 7 9 MUNSEL LAKE RD 526000 0.774 2.090 R 3 3 NELSON MTN RD 467000 9.890 11.109 M Bid List 0 NELSON MTN RD 367000 0.000 2.860 M 7 7 NELSON MTN RD 467000 4.200 9.890 M 4 7 11 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 17.412 17.883 M 4 3 7 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 0.000 0.849 L 7 7 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 5.700 11.450 M 2 2 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 11.450 12.500 M 4 4 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 12.500 13.805 M 4 4 NO FORK SIUSLAW RD 507000 13.805 17.412 M 4 4 NO RIVER RD 221000 0.000 0.433 L 7 7 NORATON RD 348500 1.856 2.718 L 2 2 NORTH DELTA HWY 173000 0.000 0.201 L Bid List 1 5 6 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 121000 0.170 1.738 L 5 5 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 121000 0.104 0.170 L 5 5 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 121000 2.568 3.220 L 5 5 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 321000 3.220 3.350 L 3 3 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY 321000 3.350 4.749 L 5 5 OAKLEA DR 351200 0.000 1.512 L 7 7 OAKLEA DR 351200 1.512 2.534 L 7 7 PARK AVE 138000 0.000 0.786 L 2 7 9 PEARL ST 163900 0.561 0.635 L Bid List 7 5 12 PEARL ST 163900 0.540 0.561 L 7 7 PERKINS RD 406600 1.110 2.822 L 2 7 9 PERKINS RD 406600 0.420 0.443 L 2 7 9 PERKINS RD 406600 0.443 1.110 L 2 7 9 PINE GROVE RD 425400 0.000 1.000 R 7 7 PIONEER PKWY EAST 194600 1.700 1.781 L Bid List 3 5 8 16 PLACE RD 622500 0.942 2.500 R 7 7 PLACE RD 622500 2.500 4.490 R 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347000 1.939 2.211 L Bid List 7 5 8 20 PRAIRIE RD 347000 0.690 1.640 L Bid List 5 6 11 PRAIRIE RD 147000 0.118 0.690 L 5 6 11

Needs Assessment Data

G-7

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

PRAIRIE RD 347080 8.050 9.250 L 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347000 1.640 1.939 L Bid List 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347030 2.221 3.116 L 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347030 3.116 5.500 L 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347030 5.500 7.286 L 7 7 PRAIRIE RD 347030 7.286 7.850 L 7 7 RATTLESNAKE RD 610400 2.250 4.474 R 3 3 RHODODENDRON DR 528000 3.440 5.112 R 4 3 7 RICHARDSON RD 501800 0.000 0.100 M 4 3 7 RIDGEWAY RD 605800 0.000 1.000 R 4 7 11 RIDGEWAY RD 605800 1.500 2.540 L 2 3 5 RIVER LP #1 325800 0.000 0.244 L 4 7 11 RIVER LP #2 318500 0.000 0.990 L 7 5 12 RIVER RD 310000 7.340 7.366 L Bid List 5 5 RIVER RD 310000 7.366 7.747 L Bid List 5 5 RODGERS RD 601800 0.678 1.200 L 7 7 ROW RIVER RD 240000 4.840 6.000 R 2 2 ROW RIVER RD 240000 1.042 1.795 L 3 5 8 ROW RIVER RD 240000 1.795 1.900 L 3 3 ROW RIVER RD 240000 6.000 11.000 R 3 3 ROW RIVER RD 240000 16.230 16.310 R 7 7 ROW RIVER RD 240000 16.310 16.597 R 7 7 ROW RIVER RD 240000 16.597 19.778 R 4 7 11 ROYAL AVE 145500 2.267 2.930 L Bid List 7 5 8 20 ROYAL AVE 145500 2.930 3.267 L Bid List 3 5 8 SAGINAW RD EAST 220200 0.000 0.622 L 7 7 SCENIC DR 310800 0.000 0.765 R 2 7 9 SEARS RD 241000 0.000 0.640 L 7 7 SEARS RD 241000 0.640 2.950 L 4 7 11 SEARS RD 241000 3.350 9.610 L 7 7 SEAVEY LP RD 188100 0.000 3.791 L 7 7 SEAVEY WAY 189300 0.222 Bridge L Bid List 0 SHARPS CR RD 246000 9.650 10.160 M 2 3 5 SHEFFLER RD 401600 0.000 1.870 R 7 7 SHOESTRING RD 275500 0.000 3.770 M 4 4 SILTCOOS STA RD 533400 0.000 1.000 M 2 2 SILTCOOS STA RD 533400 1.850 4.841 M 4 4

Needs Assessment Data

G-8

Lane County Roads Needs Assessment Data Assessment Criteria

ROAD_NAME

ROAD ID

BMP

EMP

Terrain

CIP

PCI

CBE

Width

ADT

LOS

Crash Rate

Total Points

SILVER LN 131400 0.458 0.511 L 5 5 SOUTH CANARY RD 533000 0.000 2.613 M 2 2 SPENCER CR RD 413200 0.500 3.285 R 7 7 SPRING CR DR 317500 0.000 0.527 L 2 7 9 STAGECOACH RD 502000 9.704 11.488 M Bid List 2 2 STAGECOACH RD 502000 0.000 2.500 M Bid List 4 3 7 STAGECOACH RD 502000 2.500 4.200 M Bid List 4 7 11 STAGECOACH RD 502000 4.200 9.704 M Bid List 2 7 9 SUNDERMAN RD 194800 0.000 2.728 L 3 3 SUTTLE RD 441000 0.000 3.802 L 7 7 SUTTON LAKE RD 523000 0.000 0.460 R 2 7 9 SUTTON LAKE RD 523000 0.460 2.688 R 2 7 9 TEN MILE RD 521000 0.000 2.012 M 4 7 11 TEN MILE RD 521000 2.143 8.340 M 4 7 11 THOMPSON CR RD 511000 4.300 4.820 M 4 3 7 THOMPSON CR RD 511000 0.000 0.050 M 4 4 THOMPSON CR RD 511000 0.050 2.988 M 4 7 11 THORNTON RD SO 252000 0.150 0.284 L 7 7 THURSTON RD 103500 1.082 1.330 L 4 4 UPPER NO FORK RD 508400 0.000 3.044 M 2 2 VAUGHN RD 433500 6.700 9.906 R 7 7 WARTHEN RD 402400 1.180 4.008 R 7 7 WARTHEN RD 402400 0.000 1.180 L 7 7 WENDLING RD 197500 0.000 1.600 R 3 3 WEST BOUNDARY RD 627000 1.680 15.842 M Bid List 4 4 WEST SHEFFLER RD 401800 0.000 2.352 R 2 2 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 612800 2.000 3.050 R 7 7 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 612800 3.569 5.192 M 3 3 WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RD 612800 5.192 6.065 M 3 3 WILKES DR 321400 0.000 0.290 L 5 5 WILKES DR 321400 0.790 0.932 L 4 7 11 WILKES DR 321400 0.290 0.790 L 2 2 WILLAG RD NEE RAMP #1 166001 0.000 0.285 L Bid List 7 5 12 WINBERRY CR RD 624500 4.420 5.674 M 4 4

Needs Assessment Data

G-9

Appendix H: Finding of Compliance with State Land Use

Goals and County Comprehensive Plan

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE No. PA 1202 The Lane County Board of Commissioners (“Board”) finds as follows: 1. The Ordinance to which these findings are attached effects an update to the Lane County Transportation

System Plan (TSP), which is a component of the Lane County Comprehensive Plan including the Rural Comprehensive Plan (“RCP”). In addition to adopting the updated TSP, the Board is amending RCP General Plan Goal 12, Policy 4 to incorporate the updated TSP into the County’s General Plan Policies. These changes will be referred to as the TSP update throughout these findings.

2. Pursuant to Lane Code (LC) 12.050(1) and LC 16.400(6)(h)(i) amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and

Rural Comprehensive Plan shall be by ordinance. Adopting Ordinance No. PA 1202 accomplishes these requirements.

3. LC 12.050(2) provides review criteria to adopt the updated TSP and the amendment to General Plan Policy

12 into the County Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are as follows:

LC 12.050 (2) The Board may amend or supplement the comprehensive plan upon a finding of:

(a) an error in the plan; or (b) changed circumstances affecting or pertaining to the plan; or (c) a change in public policy; or (d) a change in public need based on a reevaluation of factors affecting the plan;

provided, the amendment or supplement does not impair the purpose of the plan as established by LC 12.005 above.

LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii)(bb) provides similar review criteria for amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan, as follows:

LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii) The Board may amend or supplement the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon making the following findings: ** (bb) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan amendment or component is:

(i-i) necessary to correct an identified error in the application of the Plan; OR (ii-ii) necessary to fulfill an identified public or community need for the intended result of the component or amendment; OR (iii-iii) necessary to comply with the mandate of local, state, or federal policy or law; OR (iv-iv) necessary to provide for the implementation of adopted Plan policy or elements; OR (v-v) otherwise deemed by the Board, for reasons briefly set forth in its decision, to be desirable, appropriate or proper.

With regard to these review criteria the Board finds as follows: The Transportation Element of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 1980. The TSP update is necessary: a. to address changed circumstances related to the use and development of the transportation network in

Lane County, including population growth and new development; b. to incorporate nationally accepted engineering practices which have evolved and changed since 1980

and which pertain to transportation system planning and development, into local requirements;

H-1 Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan

Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

c. to address a change in public need as evidenced in part by the needs assessment which is a part of the TSP document and also as a result of changed circumstances as described in a. above; and

d. to comply with the mandate of new statewide planning goal requirements, specifically the Transportation Planning Rule.

Based upon all of the above findings, the Board concludes that the proposed update is consistent with the review criteria listed above.

4. LC 16.400(6)(h)(ii) requires the amendment be concurrent with an amendment to LC 16.400(4), which lists

the adopting ordinance numbers. The adopted changes include an amendment to LC 16.400(4), so this requirement has been met.

5. In addition to the requirements in LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii)(bb) listed above, additional findings under LC

16.400(6)(h)(iii)(aa) must be made to adopt the proposed TSP update. Specifically, the Board may amend the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon making certain additional findings, as follows:

LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii) The Board may amend or supplement the Rural Comprehensive Plan upon making the following findings: (aa) For Major and Minor Amendments as defined in LC 16.400(8)(a) below, the Plan component or amendment meets all applicable requirements of local and state law, including Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon Administrative Rules.

The amendment meets applicable requirements of local and state law in that it is being processed as a Plan

Amendment pursuant to LC Chapter 14 requirements, and is subject to the approval criteria of LC Chapter 16, both of which chapters were previously found to be in compliance with state law. Findings of consistency with the approval criteria in LC 16 are contained herein, including findings of consistency with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and applicable Oregon Administrative Rules, as follows:

Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.

Extensive public involvement was afforded pursuant to the Public Involvement Plan that is included in the TSP as Appendix E.1. Specifically: • Ten public information meetings were held around the County, in May and June, 1995 prior to drafting

of the updated TSP. • In September 2002, peer review was sought of the proposed road design standards, traffic impact

analysis requirements, and level of performance requirements. Seventy-eight private and public engineers and land use planners were contacted as part of that process. Follow-up telephone calls were also made to each addressee. Comments received were considered and used to make changes to applicable sections of the TSP document.

• The draft TSP document was placed in each of Lane County’s nine libraries, and published on the internet, in January 2003.

• Four public informational meetings were held around the County in February, 2003, after the draft was available for public review.

• The public information meetings and announcements about availability of the draft were publicized on two occasions, one to two weeks prior to the meetings (depending on individual newspaper schedules), via advertisements in all of the following newspapers: The Eugene-Register Guard, Springfield News, Cottage Grove Sentinel, Siuslaw News, River Reflections, and West Lane News. In addition, notice postcards were mailed to over 550 individuals and agencies including schools, emergency response agencies, utility service providers, Port of Siuslaw, other service districts, planning offices and city council members of all Lane County incorporated communities, neighborhood organizations, watershed

H-2

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

councils, public interest groups, state offices with responsibilities for transportation planning and services, private engineering, planning, and legal firms, and other interested individuals.

• A joint public hearing before the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee and Planning Commission was held on September 9, 2003. Legal notices for the hearing were published in the Eugene-Register-Guard and Springfield News, on August 19 and 20, respectively. Public hearing notice postcards were also mailed to the same 550+ parties described in the previous paragraph, and display advertisements were placed in the same six newspapers.

• A “Ballot Measure 56” notice pursuant to ORS 215.503 was mailed to more than 37,000 owners of property located within Lane County and outside the Eugene-Springfield urban growth boundary and outside the city limits of other incorporated communities.

• A second hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was held in early 2004. Prior to the hearing, legal notices were published in the Eugene Register-Guard and the Springfield News. In addition, notification postcards were mailed to the same 550+ parties described above, as well as to the parties who testified in writing or verbally at the Roads Advisory Committee/Planning Commission joint hearing.

The TSP is a plan amendment that is subject to the public notification and hearing processes and provisions of LC Chapter 14 and 16. As described above, the public involvement requirements of these chapters have been met, and exceeded, and opportunity for public involvement was afforded at all phases of the process. The amendment is therefore consistent with statewide planning Goal 1.

Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.

The Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) as complying with state planning goals. LC 16.400, adopted and also acknowledged by LCDC specifies the means by which the RCP may be amended. The TSP update follows the procedures outlined in Lane Code and these findings provide an adequate factual basis for action. The amendment therefore conforms to the established land use planning process and framework consistent with Goal 2.

Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.

As addressed under Goal 12 below and incorporated here by reference, certain transportation facilities and uses are allowed on agricultural land either outright or with a special use permit. TSP policy 20-a is being adopted and related land use regulations are being amended to provide for these uses, consistent with statewide planning Goal 3. Adoption of the TSP update will not change any agricultural land use designations. Based upon these findings the amendment is consistent with Goal 3.

Goal 4 - Forest Lands: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to

protect the state’s forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.

As addressed under Goal 12 below and incorporated here by reference, certain transportation facilities and uses are allowed on forest lands either outright or with a special use permit. TSP policy 20-a is being adopted and related land use regulations are being amended to provide for these uses, consistent with statewide planning Goal 4. Adoption of the TSP update will not change any forest land designations. Based upon these findings the amendment is consistent with Goal 4.

H-3

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.

Changes to Lane Code associated with the TSP update include an exemption for public road projects within County-regulated riparian areas from Riparian Modification Permit requirements if they comply with Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for aquatic species. Public road projects are required to comply with provisions under the ESA for aquatic species that exceed the Goal 5 and associated Lane Code requirements for riparian protection. As such, by complying with the ESA, such public road projects also will adequately address riparian protections otherwise required by regulations applicable to riparian area development.

The treatment of other resources regulated under Goal 5 will not change as a result of the TSP update, and therefore the goal is otherwise not relevant to this amendment. Based upon these findings, the TSP update is consistent with Goal 5.

Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.

The TSP update does not include any changes to the treatment of the resources protected under this goal, so the goal is not relevant to this amendment.

Goal 7 - Areas Subject To Natural Disasters And Hazards: To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.

The TSP update does not include any changes relevant to management of areas subject to natural disasters and hazards so the goal is not relevant to this amendment.

Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.

The TSP update does not include any changes related to management of recreational resources, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.

While the TSP update will provide for the continued orderly development of the County road network which is vital to economic development activity, the above statewide planning goal requirement is not directly relevant to the amendment. Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to housing, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.

Transportation facilities are identified as public facilities under this goal. OAR 660-011-0035(1) requires,

H-4 Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan

Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for those sewer, water, and transportation public facility projects identified in the facility plan . . .

The TSP update includes a project list and cost estimates for each anticipated County Road improvement project. Other public facility projects, for example water, sewer and public transit improvements, are identified in other long range planning documents adopted separately from the TSP.

Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.

OAR 660-012 is the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) that implements statewide planning Goal 12. Subsection numbers below are those found within OAR 660-012 (i.e., “-0005” refers to OAR 660-012-0005). The Board finds the TSP update complies with the TPR requirements based upon the following findings:

-0005 provides certain definitions that were adopted, as applicable to Lane County, as part of the TSP update. -0010 provides for a distinction between transportation system planning and project development, noting that the latter implements the former by determining the precise location, alignment, and preliminary design of improvements included in the TSP. This section does not direct local governments to adopt any provisions to comply with the TPR but it is noted that the County’s TSP provides for transportation system planning while Lane Code and Lane Manual provide for project development. -0015 requires County TSPs to be consistent with the state TSP. The County has consulted and coordinated with Oregon Department of Transportation to provide for coordination and mutual TSP consistency. This section of the TPR also requires that the County TSP be coordinated with federal agencies, local governments, special districts, and private providers of transportation services. The County TSP effort involved coordination with all service districts and providers of transportation services throughout Lane County, and with local governments. -0020 requires TSPs for local jurisdictions such as Lane County to have certain elements, including: • a determination of needs; • road system plan including functional classes consistent with state and regional TSPs; • road standards; • public transit; bicycle and pedestrian; air, rail, water, and pipeline elements; and • an inventory of the road system and other transportation system elements.

The TSP update includes all the required elements listed above. While a financing element is not required for areas outside urban growth boundaries, the TSP update also includes a financing element.

-0025 requires findings of compliance with statewide planning goals and acknowledged comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations. These findings demonstrate consistency with this requirement.

-0045 requires certain regulations and ordinances to be adopted. This includes land use regulations specifying transportation uses and services allowed in each land use zone; other regulations specifying access control measures and acceptable road performance levels; other transportation system protection measures consistent with road functional classes and rural land density limitations; measures to protect public use airports; a process for coordinated review of land use decisions; a process to apply development proposal conditions to minimize impacts and protect transportation facilities; regulations to require notice to public agencies; and regulations to assure that land use designations, densities, and design standards are consistent with functions, capacities and levels of service of facilities. Regulations to provide for safe,

H-5

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

convenient, and reasonably direct access for bicycles and pedestrians are also required. Finally, this section of the TPR requires that standards for local streets be adopted that minimize pavement width and total right-of-way consistent with the operational needs of the facility.

Certain of the above requirements have already been in place in Lane County’s land use regulations,

including provisions to protect airports, and land use review processes providing for coordination, notice to agencies, and for assigning conditions to development proposals. Under separate ordinance, changes to the regulations in Lane Code Chapters 10, 13, 15, and 16 are being adopted to implement the TSP in compliance with all the other above noted requirements, including new access control measures, updated regulations to provide for safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access, road performance and traffic impact analysis requirements to protect transportation facilities, and new road design standards that minimize pavement width consistent with operation needs of road facilities. The TSP also includes related, overarching goals and policies. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the requirements of -0045.

-0050 includes provisions for transportation project development, and specifies requirements for public involvement and compliance with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations when a land use decision is involved in project development. The updated TSP, and Lane Code land use regulations being adopted as part of this amendment, provide for transportation uses that may be allowed in rural areas without a goal exception. Also, pre-existing requirements provide for the necessary public process if a transportation facility or use requires a land use decision or an amendment to the TSP.

-0060(1) and (2) provide that plan and land use regulation amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall ensure that land uses allowed by the amendment are consistent with road function, capacity, level of service, and other performance standards. The TPR also specifies under what conditions a plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility. TSP Policy 20-d and related land use regulations implement this requirement with regard to plan amendments. -0060(3) requires coordination with other agencies regarding determinations under -0060(1) and (2). Lane County has long had such a coordination process in place, routinely sending proposed plan and land use regulation amendment referrals to all affected agencies. The updated TSP also includes Goal 21, and policies 21-a through 21-c, which provide for coordinated land use review when making decisions about transportation facilities. -0060(4) provides that the presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be the basis for an exception to allow certain development on rural lands. This requirement was incorporated into the TSP as policy 20-e. -0065 provides for transportation facilities, services, and improvements which may be permitted either outright or as special uses on rural lands consistent with Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 without a goal exception. In addition, this section of the TPR references provisions in ORS 215.213 applicable to agricultural lands in Lane County, and references Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660, Division 6 applicable to forest lands in Lane County. These ORS and OAR sections referenced by the TPR provide for transportation facilities and uses that may be permitted outright or as special uses in agricultural zones and forest zones. All of these provisions were addressed by TSP policy 20-a and by the adoption of corresponding land use regulation amendments that specify the facilities, services and improvements that may be permitted on rural lands, including agricultural and forest zones. As described above, and in combination with amendments being made to Lane County land use regulations, the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable requirements of the TPR.

Goal 13 - Energy: To conserve energy.

H-6

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to energy, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.

Goal 12, the Transportation Planning Rule, includes provisions related to transportation uses allowed on rural lands to help maintain the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. As noted above under findings related to Goal 12, incorporated here by reference, this proposal complies with those provisions. Besides complying with these related sections in the TPR, the TSP update will not change any County requirements related to urbanization, so the amendment is consistent with Goal 14.

Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.

The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to the Willamette River Greenway, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources: To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and to protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon’s estuaries.

The land use regulation amendments associated with the TSP update provide for consistency with this goal by restricting allowed transportation facilities, services, and improvements within estuarine zones to operations, maintenance, repair, preservation, and rehabilitation. Furthermore, such uses are only allowed provided there is no associated dredging or excavation. As such this proposal is consistent with Goal 16.

Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands: To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-depending uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and to reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting form the use and enjoyment of Oregon’s coastal shorelands.

Goal 17 is implemented under Lane County’s coastal shorelands combining zone regulations. The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to these requirements, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes: To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and to reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with these areas.

Goal 18 is implemented under Lane County’s land use combining zone regulations. The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to these requirements, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

Goal 19 - Ocean Resources: To conserve the long-term values, benefits, and natural resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf. All local, state, and federal plans, policies,

H-7

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

projects, and activities which affect the territorial sea shall be developed, managed and conducted to maintain, and where appropriate, enhance and restore, the long-term benefits derived from the nearshore oceanic resources of Oregon. Since renewable ocean resources and uses, such as food production, water quality, navigation, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment, will provide greater long-term benefits than will nonrenewable resources, such plans and activities shall give clear priority to the proper management and protection of renewable resources.

The TSP update will not change any County requirements related to ocean resources, so this goal is not relevant to the amendment.

6. Pursuant to LC 16.400(6)(h)(iii)(aa) and OAR 660-012-0025(2) above, findings of consistency with

applicable local policies, including the applicable Rural Comprehensive Plan policies are required to adopt this amendment. Findings of consistency with applicable policies of the Rural Comprehensive Plan follow.

Goal 1: Citizen Involvement 1. . . . assure availability of planning information . . . 2. . . . plan implementation shall include participation by the general public . . . 4. . . .The Citizen Involvement Program is recognized as the primary body advising the Board as to . . . Because of their regular meeting schedule and expertise, the Planning Commissions have been designated as Lane County’s Citizen Involvement Program Committees. 5. The program of communicating with chartered community organizations shall be continued. 6. Identification of priorities for and adoption of capital improvement programs shall be done through the citizen involvement program.

Findings addressing statewide planning goal 1 above demonstrate that the plan amendment is consistent with the above policies, and are incorporated here by reference. Additional findings with regard to policy 6 above are as follows. The TSP, page 64 addresses future spending and prioritization, noting that priority setting shall occur through the Capital Improvement Program process. TSP Goal 1, 23, and 24 address priority setting, and the Planning Commission has reviewed and endorsed these policies as adopted. Therefore the amendment is consistent with the above goal and applicable policies 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 above.

Goal 2: Land Use Planning 3. All products of the County Planning process shall be made available for public review and comment and shall be adopted through the hearings process. 5. The Lane County Planning Commission shall have primary advisory authority to the Board of County Commissioners for and Countywide land use policy issues.

All products proposed for adoption herein have been made available for public review as discussed in findings for statewide planning Goal 1, above, incorporated here by reference. The Lane County Planning Commission’s advice was sought and used prior to adoption of these products by the Board. Therefore the amendment is consistent with the above goal and applicable policies 3 and 5.

Goal 3: Agricultural Lands 3. Reserve the use of the best agricultural soils exclusively for agricultural purposes. 5. Use planning and implementation techniques that reflect appropriate uses and treatment for each type of land. 8. Provide maximum protection to agricultural activities . . 13. No County policy shall be construed to exclude permitted and specially permitted nonfarm uses, as defined in ORS Chapter 215.213 and OAR 660 Division 33, from the EFU zones . . .

H-8

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

TSP Policy 20-a and associated Code changes specify transportation facilities and uses allowed on agricultural lands, consistent with ORS Chapter 215.213 and OAR 660 Division 33. By doing so, the amendments are consistent with the above Goal and applicable policy statements.

Goal 4: Forest Lands Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Goal 8: Recreational Needs Goal 9: Economy of the State Goal 10: Housing

The TSP update does not include any changes relevant to management of areas subject to the above goals 4 through 10, or associated policies, so those goals are not relevant to this amendment.

Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services 4. Lane County shall maintain an active role to provide the facilities and services needed to make quality health, social and cultural services available and accessible to all Lane County residents . . .

Transportation facilities are defined as public facilities under statewide land use Goal 11. By adopting this updated TSP, Lane County is maintaining an active role in providing transportation facilities needed to make the referenced services available and accessible to all County residents.

5. Lane County shall participate in the coordination of planning and development for various public facilities and utility services. The primary means of effecting this policy shall be through a system whereby land use application shall be referred to the various providers of services . . .

Lane County has primary responsibility for the coordination of planning and development for County-maintained transportation facilities. Coordination with other service providers, including cities, Lane Transit District, utilities, special districts, and other public agencies, has been a high priority of this amendment effort. All known entities listed above were included on mailing lists for informational meetings and public hearings. Applicable agencies and service providers were directly consulted regarding the accuracy of information and policies affecting their operations. Based upon the above findings, the amendment is consistent with Goal 11 and applicable policies.

Goal 12: Transportation 1. Lane County shall strive for a coordinated and balanced transportation system which

complies with LCDC Goal 12 and is responsive to the economic, social and environmental considerations, and which will work toward the following objectives: a. Safe, convenient and economical transportation for all people, materials and services

The TSP update (TSP) complies with LCDC Goal 12 as demonstrated in the findings for that goal contained above in this document. The TSP is responsive to economic, social and environmental considerations, and works toward the objectives of safety, convenience, and economical transportation for all people, materials and services as demonstrated by all the goals and associated policies in the document.

b. An effective distribution of transportation options.

H-9

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

Transportation options are effectively distributed to the extent possible given Lane County’s primarily rural character and lack of development in rural areas. The TSP demonstrates consideration for all transportation options available, as required under statewide land use Goal 12.

c. A transportation system responsive to changing needs and conditions.

Adoption of the updated TSP is meant to comply with state regulations and to address changing needs and conditions, demonstrating consistency with this policy statement.

d. Consideration of direct and indirect impacts of proposed transportation projects on the environment, energy resources, economy and general livability.

The TSP is primarily concerned with rural Lane County which is generally in resource land zoning and use. The findings in this document demonstrate compliance with all statewide planning goals regulating these resource lands and the related environment, energy resources, economy and general livability of these areas. The needs assessment contained in the TSP also demonstrates consideration of unincorporated communities as to access for bicycle and pedestrian travel from residential areas to nearby commercial areas and employment centers. The project list included in the TSP includes projects specifically designed to improve pedestrian access, and policies require provision of bus turnouts. Consideration for freight movement and multiple transportation modes including air, transit, and other modes demonstrates consideration of impacts on the environment, energy resources, economy and general livability.

e. Public participation in the transportation planning process.

Findings for statewide Goal 1 and for Lane County Goal 1 demonstrate consistency with this objective. In addition, adopted changes to Lane Manual concerning citizen involvement in the Capital Improvement Program promotes the above objective by allowing for a stakeholder process to enhance public participation in project design.

f. Coordination with the development of statewide comprehensive transportation plans.

Coordination was of primary concern in developing the TSP. ODOT was consulted and has testified to being generally satisfied with the updated TSP.

g. Encouragement of energy-efficient modes of transportation.

Updated TSP policies associated with, and Goals 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 promote alternative, energy efficient transportation modes.

h. Safe and convenient opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel throughout population areas of Lane County.

Updated TSP Goals 6, 7, and 8 and associated policies promote safe and convenient opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Policy 1-e also accomplishes this by promoting alternative transportation modes when roads are improved, through the provision of sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus stop turnouts. Additionally, the project list includes bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented projects, based upon a needs assessment that specifically considered safe and convenient opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian travel.

i. An efficient public transportation service, which meets demonstrated needs for alternative transportation.

H-10

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

As a regional, independent service, Lane County has limited control over the management of public transportation but does participate in associated committee, task force, and lobbying activities. As reflected in the TSP, public transportation services are provided to rural Lane County to the extent possible given limited populations in these areas, and given legal and economic constraints. Goals 10, 11, and 12 of the updated TSP and associated policies demonstrate consistency with the above objective to the extent possible.

j. An appropriate level of general and commercial aviation development.

The updated TSP supports general and commercial aviation development through supportive goals and associated policies 14, 15, and 16.

k. The development of the Port of Siuslaw consistent with adopted policies and plans.

The updated TSP supports development of the Port of Siuslaw through supportive goals and associated policies 17 and 18.

2. In managing the transportation system toward the fulfillment of adopted County land use goals and plans, Lane County shall: a. Provide transportation services as necessary to accommodate growth concentrated within existing communities.

While city TSPs are the primary policy documents for existing incorporated communities, the updated County TSP is consistent with these TSPs. For example, the TSP project list includes all projects listed in city TSPs. These city projects are designed to accommodate growth in the corresponding communities. The project list also includes road improvements associated with unincorporated communities where need was demonstrated through the needs assessment in the TSP document. Other transportation modes serving growth within existing communities are addressed primarily in city TSPs.

b. Discourage the spread of residential development in agricultural and forest areas.

By complying with statewide land use goals as demonstrated in the findings above, the TSP discourages the spread of residential development in agricultural and forest areas.

c. Guide the transportation pattern of newly developing areas and rural communities.

To the extent allowed under statewide planning goals, TSP Goals and associated policies 20, 21, and 22, and associated regulations that are being adopted provide for road improvements to serve new development in a manner that contemplates the future transportation pattern by considering factors such as the logical extension of County Roads, road functional classifications, access management, and provision of improvements to serve new development consistent with statewide land use goals.

d. Ensure that transportation improvements are consistent with adopted public policies and plans. e. Ensure that road development or improvement is consistent with adopted plan and policies.

Transportation improvements must show compliance with the adopted County Comprehensive Plan including the updated TSP and with adopted land use regulations, demonstrating consistency with the above two objectives.

H-11

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

3. Lane County shall seek an efficient, safe and attractive highway network to serve the existing and future arrangement of land uses by striving toward the following objectives: a. Make improved safety for the traveling public a primary consideration in the expenditure of resources.

Improved safety is the first goal of the updated TSP and policy 1-c specifies that safety is the first priority in making decisions about roadway operations, maintenance, and repair.

b. Ensure that all road construction meets adopted uniform standards unless excepted for substantial reason.

New road design standards and corresponding policies being adopted in the updated TSP apply to publicly and privately initiated road improvement projects. In particular, Goal 1 in the updated TSP and associated policies will uniformly guide road construction.

c. Provide for timely development of streets and roads in community development centers.

Development of streets and roads in community development centers are programmed primarily in city TSPs. The County TSP needs assessment and project list, and requirements for traffic impact analysis and maintaining acceptable performance levels, provide for timely development of necessary street and road improvements for County roads within community development centers.

d. Include aesthetic considerations in maintenance, construction or improvement within County road right-of-way.

Aesthetics are incorporated into road design standards being adopted with the updated TSP. Aesthetics are also considered in policies that encourage setback sidewalks and the involvement of adjacent neighborhoods in project design.

e. Minimize frontage access onto the County’s collector and arterial roads.

Access onto County collector and arterial roads will be minimized under new TSP Goal 3 and associated policies, and associated regulations providing spacing standards and other access management provisions.

f. Ensure that future route selection considers the indirect costs as well as the direct costs of construction.

Direct and indirect costs are considered at several levels as part of the TSP update. Individual project designs are subject to citizen involvement processes. All projects must be consistent with land use policies and regulations. Alternative transportation modes to promote reduced energy use and pollution are encouraged. Projects must comply with environmental regulations and best management practices administered by state, federal, and local agencies.

g. Discourage strip development between the County’s urban service areas and their satellite communities.

The TSP update discourages strip development by complying with statewide land use goals as shown in the findings above.

h. To the extent possible, coordinate implementation of new highway facilities with land development needs to minimize stimulation of untimely land development.

H-12 Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan

Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

The TSP minimizes stimulation of untimely land development and coordinates implementation of new highway facilities with land development to the extent possible by complying with statewide land use laws and coordinating with the state in development of the TSP.

i. Ensure that street and highway development or improvement is integrated with and complementary to other transportation modes.

TSP policies provide for coordination with other transportation modes.

j. Maintain County roads and bridges adequately to meet the needs of the trucking industry consistent with adopted land use plans for the area.

Maintaining the County road system and bridges is specified as a priority under Goal 1 of the updated TSP. Policy 1-f states, “Maintain county arterial and collector roads sufficiently for the safe and efficient movement of freight, consistent with applicable traffic impact analysis, design policies and standards and land use regulations.”

k. Establish priority trucking routes, which minimize conflicts with incompatible land uses and area of congestion.

Trucking routes are established for state roads outside of this amendment process. No changes are proposed to established trucking routes.

4. The adopted Lane County Rural Transportation Plan is a special-function Plan concerned with Goal 12 requirements, and containing a number of Goalsand Policies regarding various components of the County’s transportation system and Goal 12 requirements. The Transportation System Plan, as amended and adopted in 2004, shall be applied where appropriate; policies shall be considered to be mandatory actions, which are ultimately binding on the County.

The paragraph above reflects changes that will be adopted as part of this amendment. Additional findings regarding the above policy are not necessary.

Goal 13: Energy Conservation 2. Lane County shall encourage energy conservation in the development and of public

facilities, services and utilities and in the development and use of electrical and communication systems.

The goals and policies that promote alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel reflect that the TSP update encourages energy conservation to the extent possible.

3. Lane County shall establish programs when financially reasonable to promote the stated goal through intergovernmental cooperation, to increase public awareness of the benefits of energy conservation and to revise existing programs concerning land use, transportation, existing and new building.

In complying with the Transportation Planning Rule concerning intergovernmental coordination, alternative transportation modes, and integration of land use and transportation facility decision-making, the updated TSP promotes intergovernmental cooperation in energy conservation measures.

Goal 14: Urbanization Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway

H-13

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

Goal 16: Estuarine Resources Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes Goal 19: Ocean Resources

The TSP update does not include any changes relevant to management of areas subject to the above goals 14 through 19 or associated policies, so those goals are not relevant to this amendment.

7. Based upon all of the above findings, the Board concludes that the proposed TSP update and incorporation

of TSP policies into the County General Plan policies is consistent with the requirements set forth in the applicable approval criteria. Therefore, the Board approves adoption of the proposal.

H-14

Findings of Compliance with State Land Use Goals & County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. PA 1202, Exhibit “C”

TSP Subarea Maps

Lane County, Oregon eGovernment Home News Services

Online Services

eCommerce Forms Departments Links Search Contacts

Lane County Transportation System Plan

Functional Class Subarea Maps Links to Subareas are below.

The index map above shows Subareas 1-19. Click on the links below to go to your desired map.

NOTE: If the image does not display completely when clicking on the link, try clicking the refresh button on your browser's toolbar to reload the image.

Subarea 1 Subarea 2 Subarea 3

Subarea 4 Subarea 5 Subarea 6

Subarea 7 Subarea 8 Subarea 9

http://www.co.lane.or.us/Transportation_Planning%5CTSPSubareaMapLinks.htm (1 of 2)6/13/2006 1:45:06 AM

TSP Subarea Maps

Subarea 10 Subarea 11 Subarea 12

Subarea 13 Subarea 14 Subarea 15

Subarea 16 Subarea 17 Subarea 18

Subarea 19

Public Works Engineering Transportation Planning Back

Disclaimer / Privacy / Accessibility Contact usCopyright © Lane County, Oregon. All rights reserved.

http://www.co.lane.or.us/Transportation_Planning%5CTSPSubareaMapLinks.htm (2 of 2)6/13/2006 1:45:06 AM

5

OAKRIDGE

COTTAGEGROVE

CRESWELL

SPRINGFIELD

EUGENE

JUNCTIONCITY

FL

OR

EN

CE

BLUERIVER

McKENZIEBRIDGE

WALTERVILLE

BRIC

E

CR RDSHARPS C

R R

D

SHOREVIEW

DR

ROW R

IVE

R RD

LOWELL

VENETA

SEE MAP 5c SEE MAP 5b

DEXTER

JASPER

PROJECT # 92ROW RIVER RD

PROJECT # 77BRIDGE ST

PROJECT # 122STAGECOACH RD

BLUE RIVER DR

PROJECT # 78

BLUE RIVER

McKenzie River

Elk

Cr

Rd

Blue Rive r

Rd

PROJECT # 72FISH HATCHERY RD

PROJECT # 75FISH HATCHERY RD

PROJECT # 74WESTFIR-OAKRIDGE RDPROJECT # 73

HIGH PRAIRIE RD

OAKRIDGE

McFARLAND RD

DUNNING RD

Middle Fork W illamette R iver

WEST FIR - OAKRIDG E RD

PROJECT # 95GOWDYVILLE RD

PROJECT # 70COTTAGE GROVE - LORANE HWY

PROJECT # 71BENNETT CREEK RD

PROJECT # 93SEARS RD

PROJECT # 66SOUTH RIVER RD

PROJECT # 65SWEET LN

PROJECT # 69LATHAM RD

PROJECT # 67ROW RIVER RD

PROJECT # 64THORNTON LN

PROJECT # 94MOSBY CR RD

COTTAGE

GROVE

C

O T TAGE GROVE - LOR

AN

E R

D

5

LON

DO

NR

D

MOLITOR HILL RD

PROJECT # 68NO RIVER RD

GR

IME

S RD

ELK

DR

N. RIV

ER

RD

PROJECT # 136COTTAGE GROVE - LORANE HWY

TE

RR

ITO

RIA

L HW

Y

PROJECT # 7DELIGHT VALLEYSCH RD (N)

PROJECT # 91CAMAS SWALE RD

PROJECT # 62HARVEY RD

PROJECT # 63DALE KUNI RD

CRESWELL

5

SH

ER

K

HA

N

RD

TO

LM

AN

RD

BAILEY RD

WE

ISS

RD

CLAYT

ON

RD

MIC

KE

LSO

N RD

HO

WE

LN

FL

OR

EN

CE

AV

E

HU

RL

BU

RT

LN

AS

H

LN

BU

TT

E

RD

HA

RV

EY

RD

CHRISTMAS TREE LN

CLOV E RDALE RD

PROJECT # 86DILLARD RD

PROJECT # 34FOX HOLLOW RD

S.

HID

EA

WA

Y H

ILL S

N.

HI D

EA

WA

Y H

ILL S

S.

WIL

LAM

ET

TE

ST

FO

X HOLLOW RD

CH

RIS

TE

NS

EN

RD

PROJECT # 129DEXTER RD

LOWELL

PROJECT # 128MILL RD

PROJECT # 130JASPER - LOWELL RD

DEXTER

PROJECT # 131

WEST BOUNDARY RD

FALL CREEK RESEVOIR

LOOKOUT POINT RESEVOIR

DEXTERRESERVOIR

JASPER

PROJECT # 132JASPER - LOWELL RD

PROJECT # 137HILLS CR RD

CL

OV

ER

DA

LE

RD

PR

OJE

CT

# 1

26

PROJECT # 127RIDGEWAY RD

PROJECT # 138LOST CR RD

PROJECT # 6TILLICUM AVE

LANE COUNTYTSP PROJECT LIST

MAP 5a

Urban Growth Boundaries

Urban Standards

Rural Modernization

Bike-Ped Facilities

Intersection Improvements

New Extension

Realignment

Paving

Other

PROJECT # 2MUNSEL LAKE RD

PROJECT # 123NO FORK SIUSLAW RDP

RO

JEC

T #

1R

HO

DO

DE

ND

RO

N D

R

SIUSLAW

WO

AH

INK

LA

KE

GLENADA

DUNESCITY

FL

OR

EN

CE

PROJECT # 124CANARY RD

PROJECT # 125CLEAR LAKE RD

PROJECT # 3HECETA BEACH RD

PR

OJE

CT

# 1

33S

. JE

TT

Y R

D

RIVER

PR

OJE

CT

# 8

4

PROJECT # 29PEARL ST

CO

BU

RG

RD

NO

PROJECT # 45COUNTY FARM RD

PROJECT # 43COBURG RD

PROJECT # 59GAME FARM RD NO

PROJECT # 42COUNTY FARM RD

PROJECT # 50GAME FARM RD SO

PROJECT # 56LAURA ST

PROJECT # 83McKENZIE VIEW DR

PROJECT # 90HILL RD

PROJECT # 88MARCOLA RD

PROJECT # 47ASPEN ST

PROJECT # 3531ST ST

PROJECT # 30HAYDEN BR RD

PROJECT # 85FRANKLIN BLVD EAST

PROJECT # 51McVAY HWYREALIGNMENT

PROJECT # 87SEAVEY LP RD

PROJECT # 55JASPER RD EXTENSION

PROJECT # 76CEDAR FLAT RD

5

SPRINGFIELD

5

GOSHEN

COBURG PROJECT # 28PEARL ST

PROJECT # 89MARCOLA RD

PROJECT # 135WENDLING RD

"SEE MAP 5c"

WALTERVILLE

PROJECT # 8PARSONS CR RD

LANE COUNTYTSP PROJECT LIST

MAP 5b

Urban Growth Boundaries

Urban Standards

Rural Modernization

Bike-Ped Facilities

Intersection Improvements

New Extension

Realignment

Paving

Other

PROJECT # 106HULBERT LAKE RD

PROJECT # 109OAKLEA DR PROJECT # 18

18TH AVE EAST & DEAL

PROJECT # 2018TH AVE WEST

PROJECT # 21OAKLEA DR

PROJECT # 2210TH AVE WEST

PROJECT # 236TH AVE WEST

PROJECT # 25HIGH PASS RD

PROJECT # 17PITNEY LANE NO

PROJECT # 24HIGH PASS RD

PROJECT # 19PRAIRIE RD

PROJECT # 27RIVER RD

PROJECT # 54GREEN HILL RD

EUGENE

PROJECT # 118FIR BUTTE RD

PROJECT # 119FISHER RD

PROJECT # 14PERKINS RD

PROJECT # 12HUSTON RD SO

PROJECT # 115FLECK RD

PROJECT # 13BOLTON RD EAST

PROJECT # 11BOLTON HILL RD

PROJECT # 15BOLTON HILL RD

PROJECT # 114WARTHEN RD

PROJECT # 121ELLMAKER RD

PROJECT # 120CENTRAL RD

PROJECT # 110DORSEY LN

PROJE

CT #

112

APPLEG

ATE T

RAIL

PROJECT # 107PRAIRIE RD

PROJECT # 117SPENCER CR RD

PROJECT # 116BRIGGS HILL RD

PIN

E

GR

OV

E

RD

BA

ILE

Y H

ILL

RD

GIM

PL H

ILL

RD

TE

RR

ITO

RIA

L H

WY

TE

RR

TIT

OR

IAL H

WY

NORTHWEST EXPRESSW

AY

11TH AVE

RIV

ER

RD

PROJECT # 111ALVADORE RD

PROJECT # 104MEADOWVIEW RD WEST

PROJECT # 103AWBREY LN

PROJECT # 39GREEN HILL RD

PROJECT # 16JEANS RD

BE

LTLI

NE

PROJECT # 31PRAIRIE RD

PROJECT # 82COBURG RD

FERN

RIDGE

RESERVOIR

JUNCTION CITY

VENETA

PROJECT # 53ROYAL AVE

PROJECT # 79CREST DR

PROJECT # 34FOX HOLLOW RD

PROJECT # 113HALL RD

PROJECT # 26PRAIRIE RD

PROJECT # 105MILLIRON RD EAST

PROJECT # 4018TH AVE

18TH AVE

WIL

LOW

CR

RD

PROJECT # 41W. 11TH AVE

PROJECT # 10GREEN HILL RD

AIRPORT RD

PROJECT # 134SUTTLE RD

RIVER RD AREA

PROJECT # 4VAUGHN RD

PROJECT # 5VAUGHN RD

PROJECT # 98BEACON DR WEST

PROJECT # 57RIVER RD

PROJECT # 97BEACON DR EAST

PROJECT # 96SCENIC DR

PROJECT # 99SPRING CR DR

PROJECT # 100RIVER LP # 2

PROJECT # 52IRVINGTON DR

PROJECT # 44WILKES DR

PROJECT # 46BEAVER STARTERIAL

PROJECT # 48HUNSAKER LN /BEAVER ST

PROJECT # 32DIVISION AVE

PROJECT # 102RIVER LP # 1

PR

OJE

CT

# 1

01A

RR

OW

HE

AD

ST

PROJECT # 60IRVING RD

PROJECT # 81PRAIRIE RD

PROJECT # 33LAKE DR

PROJECT # 38HORN LN

PROJECT # 61W. HILLIARD LN

PROJECT # 58DELTA / BELTLINEINTERCHANGE

RIVER ROAD AREA

RIV

ER

RD

BELTLINE

DE

LTA

H

WY

NORTHWEST EXPRESSW

AY

PROJECT # 36N. PARK AVE

PROJECT # 80HOWARD AVE

PROJECT # 49GROVE ST

PR

OJE

CT

# 31

PR

AIR

IE R

D

LANE COUNTYTSP PROJECT LIST

MAP 5c

Urban Growth Boundaries

Urban Standards

Rural Modernization

Bike-Ped Facilities

Intersection Improvements

New Extension

Realignment

Paving

Other